Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 325 (GAU)

Swapan Kumar Choudhury v. Union of India

2018-02-21

AJIT SINGH, MANOJIT BHUYAN

body2018
JUDGMENT & ORDER : Manojit Bhuyan, J. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 28.07.2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench in OA No.262/2016. By the said order, the reliefs sought for by the petitioner herein for appointment of his son on compassionate ground was negated and the Original Application was dismissed. 2. We have heard Mr. A.I. Uddin, learned counsel representing the petitioner as well as Mrs. U. Chakraborty, learned counsel representing the respondents. 3. Case laid out is that the petitioner while serving as Senior Line Inspector in NF Railway, Lumding, he was declared as medically de-categorized. This happened on 11.11.2011. Although he was due to retire on 31.01.2013, he was removed from service on 15.03.2012. The petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench in OA No.142/2012 challenging the aforesaid two orders dated 11.11.2011 and 15.03.2012. By order of the Tribunal dated 24.12.2012 the order of removal dated 15.03.2012 was set aside with direction to the respondents to allow all consequential service benefits to the petitioner. 4. From the available records it is seen that the petitioner was granted pensionary benefits and the same was received by him. When the matter rested thus, for the very first time, the petitioner made representation dated 21.03.2014 for appointment of his son on compassionate grounds as per Master Circular dated 12.12.1990. As the representation did not evoke any response, he again approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench in OA No.324/2015. The said OA was disposed of on 21.09.2015 with direction to the Railway authority to consider and dispose of the representation dated 21.03.2014 within a period of 4 (four) months. Thereafter, order dated 20.10.2015 was issued by the NF Railways stating that he was not entitled to claim appointment of his ward on compassionate ground as he did not have at least five years of service left when he was declared medically de-categorized. It was also stated that the Railway authority had provided all retirement benefits to him to which he was legally entitled to. This order was again put to challenge before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench in OA No.262/2016. The Tribunal after going through the records of the case and also taking note of the Circular dated 14.06.2006, which superseded the earlier Master Circular dated 12.12.1990, did not find any merit in the Original Application and accordingly dismissed the same. 5. This order was again put to challenge before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench in OA No.262/2016. The Tribunal after going through the records of the case and also taking note of the Circular dated 14.06.2006, which superseded the earlier Master Circular dated 12.12.1990, did not find any merit in the Original Application and accordingly dismissed the same. 5. Before this Court the primary point urged by Mr. A.I. Uddin is in respect of another Circular dated 02.11.2006 at Annexure-8 to the writ petition. It is submitted that the earlier Circular dated 14.06.2006, which prescribed requirement of at least five years of remaining service from the date of medical de-categorization, underwent substantial change in the subsequent Circular dated 02.11.2006. It is stated that the Circular dated 02.11.2006 have revived the practice as was prevalent during the period when Master Circular dated 12.12.1990 was in operation only in respect of such cases where de-categorization occurred after 14.06.2006. It is also submitted that this subsequent Circular dated 02.11.2006 did not receive consideration of the Tribunal. On a pointed query to Mr. A.I. Uddin, he submits that the writ petitioner did not bring to the notice of the Tribunal the existence of this Circular dated 02.11.2006. 6. Under normal circumstances, perhaps, the Circular dated 02.11.2006 may have come to the rescue of the petitioner to support his claim for appointment of his ward on compassionate ground as his case of medical de-categorization occurred after 14.06.2006 11.11.2011 to be precise. However, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief prayed for as he cannot be allowed to reap double benefits. Admittedly, he has been granted all retirement benefits, which he has received without any demur. Also, his claim for appointment of his son on compassionate ground was made well after he retired from service after receiving all service benefits. No claim in this regard was also made when he had first approached the Tribunal in OA No.142/2012. A paradox is also created when, in one hand, he assailed the order of medical de-categorization dated 11.11.2011 and, in the other, claiming appointment of his son on compassionate ground on account of his medical de-categorization. Be that as it may, the conduct of the petitioner does not make him entitled to equity. He cannot be allowed to claim any further benefit after receiving full retirement benefits. Be that as it may, the conduct of the petitioner does not make him entitled to equity. He cannot be allowed to claim any further benefit after receiving full retirement benefits. We find no merit in the writ petition and the same stands accordingly dismissed, however, without any order as to cost.