SHIJIN MANOHAR V. UNION OF INDIA

OP (CAT)/330/2017

AI Insights

The case revolves around Shijin Manohar C.K., whose father, a government employee, passed away in 2008. Shijin applied for a compassionate appointment in 2011, which was rejected by the Tribunal in 2015. The Tribunal's decision was based on the family's financial stability, considering the mother's pension and family pension, and the lack of immediate economic distress that compassionate appointments aim to alleviate. Shijin challenged this decision in the High Court, which also found no merit in his arguments and upheld the Tribunal's decision.

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 678298 (HC-KERALA)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Article 16 of the Constitution of India, Article 41 of the Constitution of India
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: N NAGRESH
• Assessee Lawyers: T B SIVAPRASAD; KHADEEJA KALLINGAL
• Keywords: Compassionate appointment; Financial distress; Economic crisis; Penurious condition; Financial destitution

Judgement Text

" IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V. THURSDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2017 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA, 1939 OP (CAT).No. 330 of 2017 AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA 210/2014 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH DATED 20-10-2015 PETITIONER/PETITIONER SHIJIN MANOHAR C.K. S/O.LATE NARAYANAN C.K., AGED 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT PAURNAMI, IRINGATH P.O., CALICUT-673523. BY ADVS.SRI.T.B.SIVAPRASAD SMT.KHADEEJA RISHBATH KALLINGAL RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS: 1. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, TO MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI, PIN-110001. 2. CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CCA) C.R.BUILDINGS, I.S.PRESS ROAD, COCHIN-18. R1 BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 30-11-2017,THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: OP (CAT).No. 330 of 2017 (Z) APPENDIX PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF OA NO.210 OF 2014 FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM. EXHIBIT P2 REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 6-6-2014. EXHIBIT P3 A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT DATED 7-11-2014. EXHIBIT P4 A TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 20-10-2015. TRUE COPY P.A TO JUDGE SMM P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON & SHIRCY V.,JJ. ------------------------------------------------------ O.P(CAT)No.330 of 2017 ------------------------------------------------------ Dated this the 30th day of November, 2017 JUDGMENT P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J. The grievance of the petitioner is with regard to the claim for compassionate appointment which was repelled by the Tribunal as per Ext.P4 order passed on 20.10.2015. The father of the petitioner, while working as Assistant Commissioner (Income Tax), took his last breath on 26.7.2008. Claiming compassionate appointment, an application was filed nearly three years later, on 29.11.2011. The claim was considered and rejected; which was the subject matter of challenge before the Tribunal in the Original Application. 2. After considering the rival contentions, the Tribunal drew an inference against the petitioner with reference to the financial aspects. The observations made O.P(CAT)No.330 of 2017 2 by the Tribunal as given in paragraph 6 to 8 are in the following terms: “6. Compassionate appointment is a departure from the scheme of public appointments envisages in Article 16 of the Constitution of India, it is judicially well-settled that compassionate appointment is granted to a member of the family of the deceased Government employee in order to render immediate assistance to the family to tide over the acute financial crisis occurred due the death of the breadwinner of the family and to prevent it from falling into vagrancy. Govt. of India has formulated a scheme for this purpose which after several modifications introduced from time to time has now been consolidated by way of the O.M dated 16.1.2013 issued by the DoPT. Constitutionally speaking, the scheme has the underpinning of Article 41 of the Constitution of India which envisages public assistance in cases of 'undeserved want'. The dominant objective of compassionate appointment, as can be seen from the aforementioned O.M issued by the DoPT, is the immediate assistance to the family of the deceased Govt. employee in order to relieve it from economic distress. Therefore, before any decision is taken to provide compassionate appointment to a dependent family member of the deceased Govt. employee, it has to be ascertained whether the family is in economic distress. Penurious condition of the family without any other means of livelihood should be the O.P(CAT)No.330 of 2017 3 criterion for appointments on compassionate grounds, with the objective of relieving the family of Govt. servant concerned from financial destitution and to help it to get over the economic crisis on account of sudden stoppage of salary income of government servant. 7. In the instant case, nothing was brought out by the applicant to show that his request for compassionate appointment was on account of a financial crisis in the family that has lead to financial destitution due to the death of his father. Applicant points out that the family has liabilities like meeting treatment expenses of his mother and the marriage and educational expenses of his two sisters. But for all that the fact remains that the mother of the applicant is getting income both by way of her own pension as a retired lecturer in the government college and also the family pension of the deceased official. Nothing was brought out by the applicant that the family is in a state of financial emergency which might lead to financial destitution, penury or economic distress. 8. Applicant alleges that respondent No.2 has no jurisdiction to consider and re-consider the applications by setting up different committees. This Tribunal is of the view that Respondent No.2 has acted with circumspection to ensure that only in genuine cases employment assistance need to be given. A reading of Annexure A/4 recommendations of the first committee which considered applicant's case shows that his case can be considered as a job for the applicant will be of O.P(CAT)No.330 of 2017 4 substantial help in improving the family's financial position which according to the committee, cannot be stated as secure. The state of affairs as envisaged in the remarks of the committee in Annexure A/4 is certainly not indicative of a penurious condition of the applicant's family. Therefore, it goes without saying that the respondents have rightly decided not to grant him for appointment on compassionate ground.” 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner at length, this Court finds that no tenable ground to warrant interference is projected or substantiated before this Court. That apart, the very application for compassionate appointment was filed on 29.11.2011, ie. 3 years after the demise of the father occurred on 26.7.2008. The matter attained finality on passing Ext.P4 order by the Tribunal on 20.10.2015. The petitioner approached this Court only after two years of passing Ext.P4. Absolutely, no explanation has been given by the petitioner anywhere in the Original Petition or in the affidavit in support thereof, as to the inordinate delay. The Original Petition is to fail on this ground as well. O.P(CAT)No.330 of 2017 5 Dismissed accordingly. P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J. JUDGE SHIRCY.V JUDGE smm "