MITHESH A.M V. UNION OF INDIA

OP (CAT)/95/2018

AI Insights

The case revolves around Mithesh A.M, who sought a compassionate appointment following the death of his father, a Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, in 2004. The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) had earlier dismissed his application, leading to this petition. The petitioner argued that his family's financial condition deteriorated post his father's death, justifying a compassionate appointment. However, the respondents provided evidence showing the family was not in financial distress, including the mother's employment and the family's assets. The High Court found no reason to interfere with the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing that compassionate appointments are not meant to provide employment but to assist families in dire financial need immediately following the breadwinner's death.

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 722315 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 26-06-2018
• Assessment Year: misc
• Other Referred Cases: MMTC Ltd vs Pramoda Dei ((1997) 11 SCC 390)
• Laws Referred To: CCS (MA) Rules, 1944
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: N NAGARESH
• Assessee Lawyers: G KRISHNAKUMAR; M L REMYA
• Keywords: Compassionate appointment; Financial Crisis; Screening Committee; Employment scheme

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.M.BABU TUESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF JUNE 2018 / 5TH ASHADHA, 1940 OP (CAT).No. 95 of 2018 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA 180/2016 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH PETITIONER(S) MITHESH A.M S/O.A.K.MOHANDAS (LATE) KRISHNA LEELA, DEEPTHI NAGAR, CIVIL LINES ROAD, POOTHOLE P.O., THRISSUR 680 004. BY ADVS.SRI.G.KRISHNAKUMAR SMT.M.L.REMYA RESPONDENT(S): 1. UNION OF INDIA REP. BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI- 110 001. 2. THE CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES, NEW DELHI- 110 001. 3. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDING, IS PRESS ROAD, KOCHI- 682 018. R1 -R 3 BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-06-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP (CAT).No. 95 of 2018 (Z) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE OA NO.180/00605/2016 WITH ANNEXURES FILED BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXT P2 TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN OA NO.180/00605/2016 ON THE FILE OF THE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE APPLICANT IN OA NO.605/2016 ON THE FILES OF THE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNITY CERTIFICATE DATED 27/02/15 ISSUED BY THE TAHASILDAR, THRISSUR TALUK. EXT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 7/4/17 OF THE CAT, ERNAKULAM BENCH. IN OA NO.180/00605/2016. RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS NIL TRUE COPY SKS P.A TO JUDGE C.T. RAVIKUMAR & A.M. BABU,JJ. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = OP(CAT) No.95 of 2018 - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 26th day of June, 2018 JUDGMENT C.T. RAVIKUMAR J. This original petition is filed challenging Ext P5 order dated 7.4.2017 passed by the Central Administrative T ribunal, Ernakulam in O.A No.605/2016. The unsuccessful applicant is the petitioner. He filed the said original application alleging inaction on the part of the third respondent in considering his application for appointment on compassionate ground. His father died in harness while working as Deputy Commissioner of Income T ax on 21.10.2004. The petitioner submitted Annexure A1 proforma for appointment on compassionate ground and on its receipt, he was called for an interview. Later, as per Annexure A3 communication, he was informed that the Screening Committee did not recommend his case. The contention of the petitioner is that his application was not recommended by the Screening Committee owing to the fact that he made the request for appointment after a period of three years. OP(CAT) 95/2018 -: 2 :- Aggrieved by the said action, the petitioner submitted Annexure A5 representation. Since no action was taken on Annexure A5 representation, he submitted subsequent representations viz., Annexures A10 and A11. No action was taken by the respondents on Annexures A10 and A11. It is in the said circumstances, he approached the T ribunal by filing the above mentioned original application, in the year 2016. 2. A reply affidavit was filed by the respondents, before the Tribunal, wherein they had narrated in detail the circumstances which persuaded them to take a decision to not grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner. Though the petitioner attempted to establish that pursuant to the death of his father the family fell in straitened circumstances, on analysing the data furnished by the petitioner himself along with his application, it was found that such contentions are absolutely devoid of any merit. The committee on compassionate appointment held on 25.5.2007 had taken into account the the following points: (i) The applicant was working with JRG Securities,Thrissur; OP(CAT) 95/2018 -: 3 :- (ii) Applicant's mother was working as a teacher in LP section of Cheruthuruthy Govt.Higher Secondary School; (iii) Family was receiving family pension of Rs 8,719/- for the period 27.10.2004 to 26.10.2011 and Rs 5232/- since 27.10.2011 as per Pension Payment Order dated 4.4.2005. They are staying in own house at Poothole, Thrissur; (iv) As against total asset of 18,90,223/-, the family has liabilities of Rs 3,15,000/-; 3. A rejoinder was filed by the petitioner in the original application virtually refuting all the contentions taken up by the respondents in the reply affidavit. The Tribunal considered the rival contentions and ultimately dismissed the application as per the impugned order. Hence, this original petition. 4. There cannot be any doubt with respect to the position that compassionate appointment is not a method of appointment. Only a particular percentage of the vacancies, in a lower grade where the method of appointment is direct recruitment, arising in a particular department alone is ear- marked for compassionate appointment and in the said circumstances only the really deserving candidates can be OP(CAT) 95/2018 -: 4 :- given appointment under the said scheme. After the receipt of Annexure A3 communication and then the submission of Annexures A10 and A11, the petitioner had approached the T ribunal only in the year 2016 and by the time, about 12 years had elapsed since the death of his father. In the decision in MMTC Ltd vs Pramoda Dei ((1997) 11 SCC 390) the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the object of compassionate appointment would be to enable penurious family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis and not to provide employment and that mere death of an employee would not entitle his family to compassionate employment. Now, we will consider the merits of the case in view of the position of law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court on the subject. In the case on hand, the father of the petitioner died in the year 2004. Admittedly, the mother of the petitioner was a teacher in a Government Primary School. It is the contention of the petitioner that his father had availed a housing loan and consequently, huge financial liability had occasioned. However, admittedly, the amount availed as OP(CAT) 95/2018 -: 5 :- housing loan was only Rs 30,200/-. In the reply affidavit filed by the respondents, it has been specifically stated that the actual EMI to the said loan transaction was only Rs 168/- and further that the principal amount was paid in the year 1995. Interest was also recovered subsequently. With respect to the contention of the petitioner that his father had incurred huge amount towards medical expenses, it is specifically stated therein that being a Central Government employee he was entitled to get reimbursement of the medical expenses and advances under CCS (MA) Rules, 1944. That apart, it is stated that the assets of the family of the petitioner is Rs 18,90,223/-. Evidently, it is the culmination of the consideration of all such aspects that resulted in rejection of the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. A perusal of the impugned order passed by the T ribunal would reveal that all the relevant factors to consider whether an applicant is entitled to get a direction for appointment under the compassionate employment scheme were taken into consideration by the OP(CAT) 95/2018 -: 6 :- T ribunal. The impugned judgment would also reveal that the question whether the authorities had considered all such relevant aspects were also considered by the T ribunal. T aking into account the financial position of the family and above all, the fact that twelve years had elapsed since the death of the petitioner and also that he moved the T ribunal only after long lapse of time since the death of his father. We do not find any reason to hold that the order passed by the Tribunal is infected with any illegalities or irregularities warranting an interference in exercise of the power of judicial review. In the said circumstances, there is no merit in this original petition and accordingly, it is dismissed. sd/- C.T. RAVIKUMAR Judge sd/- A.M. BABU Judge sks/27.6.2018 "