Original Application No.618 of 2010. Case: 1. Smt. Savinder Kour, 2. Devendra Singh Vs 1. Union of India, 2. The Director General of Ordinance Factories, 3. The Senior General Manager. Central Administrative Tribunal
| Case Number | Original Application No.618 of 2010 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Advocate Shri B.L. Nag and For Respondent: Advocate Shri A.T. Faridee |
| Judges | Mr. Dhirendra Mishra, Judicial Member and Mr. G.P.Singhal, Administrative Member |
| Issue | Administrative Law |
| Judgement Date | August 08, 2013 |
| Court | Central Administrative Tribunal |
Order:
Dhirendra Mishra, Judicial Member, (Jablapur Bench)
-
The applicants have filed this Original Application and prayed for direction to the respondents to consider the candidature of applicant No.2 for any Group-C post or in the alternative Group-D post for appointment on compassionate grounds as his father late Shri Surendra Singh was medically boarded out on 23.04.2007 from the post of Machinist (Master Craftsman) under the respondents, before 5 years 10 months of the age of his superannuation, by quashing the orders dated 26.3.2010 (Annexure A-1), 19.09.2008 (Annexure A-15), and 21.05.2009 (Annexure A-16), whereby the respondents have informed the applicant no.1 that her son''s case for compassionate appointment was considered by the screening committee on three occasions, however, the committee did not recommend his case for compassionate appointment on the basis of comparative merit as he could secured only 47 merits points as against minimum 50 and above merit points scored by the candidates whose cases were recommended for appointment.
-
Shri Nag, learned counsel for the applicants, vehemently argued that case of applicant No.2 has been considered by the respondents as per instructions contained in Ordnance Factory Board''s circular dated 03.04.2001 (Annexure A-14), which has been subsequently superseded by the Department of Personnel and Training OM dated 09.10.2006 and 19.1.2007 (Annexure RJ-1). The respondents have assessed the candidature of applicant No.2 by reference to Weightage Point System, by allotting marks under various heads and accordingly allotted him 47 merit points at the time of all the three considerations, without considering the other factors that the family members of the medically boarded employee are required to pay house rent, loan etc. and that they do not have any regular source of income. Referring to the consolidated instructions on compassionate appointment issued by the Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training vide O.M. dated 16.1.2013 (Annexure A-17), it was argued that the respondents ought to have followed the procedure prescribed under the consolidated instructions dated 16.1.2013 and subsequent clarifications filed as Annexure A-18.
-
On the other hand learned counsel for the respondents submits that the case of applicant No.2 has been duly considered along with other eligible candidates for compassionate appointment on three occasions as per prevalent scheme for...
To continue reading
Request your trial