A. Suresh v. Union Of India

Per: Justice N.K. Balakrishnan, Judicial Member This application has been filed seeking quashment of Annexure A1 and for a direction to the respondents to reconsider the applicant's case for appointment on compassionate grounds in terms of Annexure A7 order of the Railway Board.

2. The case of the applicant is stated in brief as follows:

3. The applicants father who was an employee of the Southern Railway expired on 31.7.2010 after rendering regular service of 28 years. Applicant's mother submitted representations seeking employment on compassionate ground to the applicant. Applicant was informed as per Annexure A3 that the applicant did not pass 8 th class and hence he cannot be considered for appointment without the approval of the Railway Board. As per Annexure A4 the applicant was informed that the rquest for compassionate appointment was referred to CPO/MAS and that it was advised that the General Manager has not recommended the case for being referred to Railway Board for relaxation in the minimum educational qualification. Representations were again sent. Quoting the relevant Railway Board order Annexure A8 representation was given which was forwarded to the 2nd respondent but as per Annexure A1 the request was declined by the respondents. Hence seeking the reliefs as afore stated this OA has been filed.

4. The claim is resisted by the respondents contending that the applicant did not have the minimum educational qualification of 8th class pass for appointment in Group D. It is stated that as per Railway Board letter dated 22.2.1989 the minimum educational qualification should not be relaxed and if the General Manager of the Zonal Railways feels it absolutely necessary to relax such cases my be referred to the Ministry of Railways. The power to consider appointment of wards not having the requisite minimum educational qualification lies to the General Manager of the Zonal Railways. The applicant was not having the prescribed minimum educational qualification of 8th standard pass. The mother of the applicant was told that appointment of her second son can be considered, but the applicant's mother reiterated her request for appointment of the applicant. Since the applicant's case was already considered and rejected by the General Manager, it cannot be reexamined.

5. The point for consideration is whether the applicant's case for appointment on compassionate ground requires re-consideration at the hands of the respondents?

6. There is no doubt that the compassionate appointment is an exception. There cannot be a lien of succession. It is a situation which arises when the breadwinner of the family dies leaving the family in penury. According to the respondents, the applicant has not chosen to get appointment for her second son evidently because they do not suffer from impecuniousness. In other words, it is not a case where the family suffers from abject penury. The purpose of compassionate appointment is to mitigate the hardship caused due to the death of the breadwinner of the family. But the learned counsel for the applicant would submit that pursuant to Annexure A7 Railway Board order, the mother of the applicant again made a representation on 5.2.2013 to consider the case of the applicant vide Annexure A8. But the contention raised by the respondents is that the mother could have sought employment for her second son who had the required educational qualification. Of course, that may not stand in the way of getting employment for her elder son, if he is otherwise entitled to. There may be variety of the reasons to choose who among the sons could get the employment, for, she may have the fear of not being looked after by the other son, if he is given employment, learned counsel submits.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant very much relied upon Annexure A7 Railway Board order dated 9.12.2011 which shows that the Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) has decided that in exceptional circumstances, whereever grant of appointment is considered to any of those persons in categories mentioned not in possession of prescribed educational qualifications for the post, such persons will be recruited/engaged as trainees who will be given the regular pay bands and grade pay only on acquiring the minimum educational qualifications prescribed under the Recruitment Rules. Annexure A7 says that the employment of such trainees during the period of their training and before they are absorbed in the Government as employees, will be governed by the minimum of the -IS pay band without any grade pay. It further says that the period spent in the -IS pay band by the future recruits will not be counted as service for any purpose as their regular service will start only after they are placed in the pay band PB-1 of Rs. 5200-20200 along with grade pay of Rs. 1800/-. The relevant portion of the letter is quoted hereunder: 'Accordingly, it has now been decided by the Ministry of Railways (Railway Board) that in exceptional circumstances, wherever grant of appointment is considered to any of those persons in categories mentioned above, not in possession of prescribed educational qualification for the post, such persons will be recruited/engaged as trainees who will be given the regular pay bands and grade pay only on acquiring the minimum educational qualifications prescribed under the recruitment rules. The emoluments of such trainees during the period of their training and before they are absorbed in the Government as employees, will be governed by the minimum of the -IS pay band without any grade pay. The period spent in the -IS pay band by the future recruits will not be counted as service for any purpose as their regular service will start only after they are placed in the pay band PB-1 of Rs. 5200- 20200 along with grade pay of Rs. 1800/-.' It seems that consideration regarding the impecuniousness and other aspects were not looked into by the respondents but only on the ground that the applicant does not possess the required educational qualification the request was rejected. Though a request was made to the Senior DPO for referring the matter to the Railway Board for relaxation in the minimum educational qualification, the applicant was advised by the CPO Madras that the General Manager has not recommended the case for being referred to the Railway Board.

8. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that when the Railway Board has got the discretion to grant relaxation with regard to the minimum educational qualification and when Annexure A7 itself contains such safeguards as are necessary for the department, it would have been just and proper that the representation was referred to the Railway Board to take appropriate decision in the matter. Therefore, it is just and proper that the request made by the applicant is referred by the General Manager to the Railway Board to consider whether the request for relaxation of minimum educational qualification is to be allowed or not. It is made clear that no finding has been entered by this Tribunal as to whether the applicant satisfied the penury condition of the family of the deceased and other conditions, if any, to be satisfied for getting appointment on compassionate ground. That is a matter for the respondents to consider.

9. In the result this Original Application is disposed of directing the respondents to re-consider the request made by the applicant referring the matter to the Railway Board regarding the relaxation of educational qualification as stated above. The entire exercise shall be completed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No order as to costs. (N.K. Balakrishnan) Judicial Member kspps