Original Application No. 104 of 2011. Case: 1. Smt. Keshar Bai, 2. Banti Marve Vs 1. Union of India, Through: The Ministry of Communication & Information Technology, 2. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., 3. Chairman-Cum-Managing Director, 4. Chief General Manager (Telecom), 5. Divisional Engineer (Administration) Office of General Manager. Central Administrative Tribunal

Case NumberOriginal Application No. 104 of 2011
CounselFor Appellant: Advocate Shri Saurabh Tiwari and For Respondent: Advocate Shri S.K. Mishra
JudgesMr. Dhirendra Mishra, Judicial Member and Mr. G.P.Singhal, Administrative Member
IssueAdministrative Law
Judgement DateSeptember 20, 2013
CourtCentral Administrative Tribunal

Order:

G.P.Singhal, Administrative Member, (Jabalpur Bench)

  1. The applicants have preferred this Original Application, seeking appointment of the applicant No.2 on compassionate ground in the respondent-organization.

  2. The applicants submitted that after the death of Shri Mohan Lal Marve in harness on 04.03.2007, the applicant No.1 had applied for grant of compassionate appointment to the applicant No.2 vide her application dated 19.03.2007 (Annexure A-2). However, vide the communication dated 12.02.2009 (Annexure A-6), the applicant No.2 has been informed by the respondents that since he was allotted only 46 marks, as against the minimum benchmark of 55, his application has not been recommended for compassionate appointment by the High Power Empowered Committee. The applicants thereafter, filed Original Application No.518/2010 before this Tribunal, which was disposed of vide the order dated 14.07.2010 (Annexure A/9), directing the respondents to reconsider the case within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of the order. In compliance of the direction, the respondents reconsidered the case, wherein, they rejected it vide their order dated 27.11.2010 (Annexure A-12). Hence, this Original Application.

  3. The contention of the applicants is that in their case, zero marks have been given for point No.6, i.e., accommodation, treating them to be living in their own house, but the applicants are residing in a rented accommodation, and they had mentioned clearly in their application form filled on 27.06.2007 that, they do not have any movable and immovable property. The respondents had asked the applicant No.2 vide their letter dated 14.10.2010 (Annexure A-10) to file certain information in regard to their accommodation, and in response to it, they have already filed the affidavit of not only the applicants but also of the owner of the house, as well as copies of tax receipts of Municipal Corporation, Jabalpur. It is clearly mentioned in the affidavit filed by the house owner Shri Vicky Marve, son of Late Shri Harilal Marve, that this house is the property of his late father and is now jointly owned by him along with his mother and elder brother. It is further mentioned in this affidavit that since the applicants are his relatives, no tenancy agreement has been executed with them, but they are paying Rs.700 per month as house rent. Thus, the applicant No.2 deserves full 10 marks on account of accommodation as he is living in a rented...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT