Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 127 (CAL)

Renuka Mondal v. Union of India

2013-03-01

JAYANTA KUMAR BISWAS, TARUN KUMAR GUPTA

body2013
JUDGMENT : Jayanta Kumar Biswas, J. The petitioners in this WPCT under Article 226 of the Constitution of India dated February 8, 2008 are questioning an order of the Calcutta Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated April 10, 2007 dismissing their OA No. 243 of 2006. The first petitioner's husband Kanailal Mondal was working in the Department of Posts, India as a member of the Group-D staff. He died in harness on December 5, 1996. The second petitioner, his son, applied for a Group-D employment on compassionate grounds. The authority found him eligible and put his name on the register. A person below him on the register was given a Group-D employment on compassionate grounds. But citing non-availability of a vacancy for Group D he was offered an employment to a GDS post. 2. The second petitioner's conditional acceptance of the offer was not accepted by the authority. Finally by a decision dated March 11, 2005 the authority informed the first petitioner that it was not possible to give the second petitioner an employment on compassionate grounds. Feeling aggrieved the petitioners filed the OA. The Tribunal while dismissing the OA said as follows:-- "In view of the above, I find no merit in this O.A. which is accordingly dismissed. However, dismissal of this O.A. will not stand in the way of the respondents renewing their offer of appointment as GDS to the applicant No. 2, if he is still waiting and his name is in the panel, as per extent rule." 3. Over the course of hearing of the WPCT we wanted to know from Mr. Ghosh appearing for the respondents whether the respondents would still be in a position to consider the question of offering the second petitioner an employment on compassionate grounds to a GDS post. Mr. Ghosh prayed for accommodation so that he could obtain necessary instructions. 4. Now Mr. Ghosh submits that he has received written instructions dated February 28, 2013 from the authority concerned. A copy of the written instructions with other relevant documents has been produced before us. Mr. Ghosh prayed for accommodation so that he could obtain necessary instructions. 4. Now Mr. Ghosh submits that he has received written instructions dated February 28, 2013 from the authority concerned. A copy of the written instructions with other relevant documents has been produced before us. The last para, of the written instructions dated February 28, 2013 is quoted below:-- "In view of the above, I have been directed by the competent authority that the Department may consider this case on merit as per rules/provisions in para 8 of the scheme for compassionate appointment as circulated in DOP&T OM No. 14014/02/2012-ESTT(D) dated 16.01.2013. Copies of relevant rules are enclosed." 5. A copy of the DOP&T OM No. 14014/02/2012 Estt.(D) dated January 16, 2013 has also been produced with a copy of the scheme that was circulated under the OM. Para. 8 of the scheme is quoted below:-- "8 Time Limit For Considering Applications For Compassionate Appointment. Prescribing time limit for considering applications for compassionate appointment has been reviewed vide this Department O.M. No. 14014/3/2011-Estt(D) dated 26.07.2012. Subject to availability of a vacancy and instructions on the subject issued by this Department and as amended from time to time, any application for compassionate appointment is to be considered without any time limit and decision taken on merit in each case." 6. Saying that since Group-D and GDS post are no longer in existence, the second petitioner's case can be considered for offering him an employment only to the post of Multi Tasking Staff, and that appointment to the post of Multi Tasking Staff is to be made according to the Department of Posts Multi Tasking Staff Recruitment Rules, 2010, Mr. Ghosh has said that the second petitioner passing Class-VIII will be given the requisite training for making him eligible for appointment to the post. 7. Mr. Majumder appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners feeling extremely grateful for the gesture shown by Mr. Ghosh and the officials of the department will be very happy to accept an offer for an appointment of the second petitioner to the post of Multi Tasking Staff. He has said that the second petitioner will take the requisite training for making himself eligible for appointment to the post. 8. We express our happiness that the long battle of the petitioners is going to end. Mr. He has said that the second petitioner will take the requisite training for making himself eligible for appointment to the post. 8. We express our happiness that the long battle of the petitioners is going to end. Mr. Ghosh has taken an ideal step and the officials of the department have risen to the occasion. They all have played a laudable role. We hope that the second petitioner trained and appointed will give the department extremely valuable service. 9. For these reasons, we modify the impugned order and dispose of the WPCT ordering as follows. Within six weeks from the date this order is served the authority concerned shall issue the necessary order for the second petitioner' training for making him eligible for appointment to the post of Multi Tasking Staff on compassionate grounds. No costs. Certified xerox. I agree.