Nagendra Kumar Vs. Union of India (The Secretary to the Government of India), Ministry of Communication (Deptt. of Posts), Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi and Others - Court Judgment

1. By way of this Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant is seeking the following reliefs:-

“(a) That order dt. 05.05.2005 (Annexure A-3) passed by the Sr. Suptd. of Post Offices, Mathura Division, Mathura, canceling candidature of compassionate appointment of applicant on illegitimate and non-tenable grounds casting repercussion on his Educational Certificate may kindly be ordered to be quashed and set-aside by the Hon’ble Tribunal.

(b) That the respondents may further be directed to provide compassionate appointment, to the applicant to Group ‘D’ post for which he was approved by Chief Post Master General, U.P. Circle, Lucknow, vide its order No.Bharti-5/14/94/7 dated 12.09.1997 (Annexure A-2)

(c) That as directed in para 6 and 7 of Hon’ble Tribunal order dt. 28.09.2006 (Annexure A-4), the Chief Post Master General, U.P. Circle, Lucknow, may be redirected to institute proper inquiry on the lines directed in Hon’ble Tribunal’s said order and thereafter, pass appropriate order in this case for appointment of applicant on compassionate grounds. That in the event authorities are in any manner held responsible for misleading the Hon’ble Tribunal in regard to Educational Certificates of the applicant, appropriate disciplinary action be taken against them in fulfillment of directions of para-7 of said orders. The result of the same be also communicated/furnished for record of the Hon’ble Tribunal.

(d) That grave excesses committed by the Sr. Suptd. of Post Offices Mathur Dn., Mathura, in jeopardizing this case of compassionate appointment on raising false and fabricated reports of ingenuity of his Education Certificates as many times, by misusing his authority, be taken into notice by the Hon’ble Court and very heavy costs to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/- be imposed on the authority concerned/ responsible for causing long drawn suffering, mental agony and loss of livelihood to the meek applicant.

(e) Allow any other and further relief as may kindly be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of this case by the Hon’ble Tribunal, in order to meet the ends of justice;

(f) Award costs of this O.A. to the extent of Rs.30,000/- in favour of the long drawn suffering applicant.”

2. The applicant’s claim in this Application is for compassionate appointment. The case has an exchequered history.

3. The applicant’s father, who was working as Sorting Oversear in Head Post Office, Mathura, was invalidated on medical grounds in July, 1992 whereupon the applicant applied to the respondents for appointment on compassionate grounds under the Rules of the respondents. Vide his communication dated 12.9.1997 addressed to Chief Post Master General (CPMG), U.P. Circle, Lucknow, the CPMG with the approval of the Directorate General of Post, New Delhi approved the appointment of the applicant in Group ‘D’ post allotting him to Mathura Division on compassionate ground in relaxation of Recruitment Rules subject to verification of applicant’s educational certificates etc. in the prescribed manner. A copy of this communication is at Annexure A/2. Thereafter upon due verification, the Office of the Senior Superintendent of Post, Mathura did not find educational certificates of the applicant as genuine. Accordingly, the applicant’s case was placed before relaxation Committee for re-consideration in the light of finding of the verification of educational certificates made by the office. The circle relaxation Committee did not approve the applicant for compassionate appointment and recommended cancellation of the offer made earlier to the applicant in the matter. This was challenged by the applicant in OA No.290/2006. The said OA was allowed vide order dated 28.9.2006 whereby the matter was remitted back to the CPMG to get proper inquiry made in the matter, whereupon appropriate orders would be passed by the CPMG under intimation to the applicant within the period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of that order. The respondents made necessary inquiry in the matter and did not find the educational certificates of the applicant as genuine and thereupon after due process the approval of the compassionate appointment given to the applicant’s appointment vide CPMG, Lucknow letter dated 25.4.2005 was rescinded and the offer for compassionate appointment was cancelled vide letter dated 30.3.2007. After about three years, the applicant filed MA No.24/2010 in OA 290/2006 (supra) seeking directions to the respondents to appoint him on compassionate ground consequent upon the verification of the applicant’s educational certificates made by the authorities concerned, in support of his date of birth and educational qualification in compliance with the directions issued vide order dated 28.9.2006 in OA No.290/2006. The said MA was disposed of vide order dated 4.6.2010, a copy of which is at Annexure A/1, holding that the relief claimed by the applicant could not be granted by way of the MA. The said MA was accordingly disposed of with liberty to the applicant to come before the Tribunal in the Original Application. The applicant has then filed the present Application on 2.2.2011 praying the reliefs as stated above.

4. At the hearing, learned counsel for the respondents Shri R.N. Singh raised certain preliminary objections to the maintainability of the Application which need to be gone into before the Application can be taken up for consideration on merits.

5. Shri Singh referred to para 1 of the Application wherein the Application is stated to have been directed against four orders mentioned therein. These orders are: (1) order of This Tribunal dated 4.6.2010 passed in MA No.24/2010 in OA No.290/2006, as at Annexure A-1; (2) order dated 28.9.2006 passed by this Tribunal in OA No.290/2006, as at Annexure A-4; (3) OM No.B-14/Nagendra Kumar/03 dated 5.5.2005, as at Annexure A-3, cancelling the compassionate appointment of the applicant approved earlier by the CPMG, U.P. Circle, Lucknow vide letter dated 12.9.1997, as at Annexure A/2; and (4) letter of CPMG, U.P. Circle, Lucknow dated 12.9.1997, as at Annexure A/2. Out of these four, two are orders are passed by this Tribunal over which this Bench cannot sit in appeal. If the applicant has any grievance in respect of these two orders on any count, his remedy would lie in an appeal in High Court or in a review application before the same Bench which passed the said order. Furthermore, OM No.B-14/Nagendra Kumar/03 dated 5.5.2005, as at Annexure A-3, has already been the subject matter of consideration in OA No.290/2006 and no longer survives after the matter has been remitted back to the respondents for passing further appropriate orders after making necessary inquiry into the matter. As regards the letter of CPMG, U.P.Circle, Lucknow dated 12.9.1997, as at Annexure A-2, the applicant does not have any grievance with regard to it, though the order dated 5.5.2005, as at Annexure A-3, has been a sequel to this letter dated 12.9.1997 for having been passed after making necessary verification in terms of the directions issued in letter dated 12.9.1997. Shri Singh then referred to the relief clause in Para 8 of the Application. Sub para (a) of para 8 of the relief clause seeks quashing and setting aside of the order dated 5.5.2005, as at Annexure A-3, as stated earlier. This order dated 5.5.2005 has already been adjudicated by the Tribunal in OA No.290/2006 and the same was allowed whereupon the matter was remanded back to the respondents to pass further appropriate orders after making necessary inquiry in terms of the Tribunal’s order dated 28.9.2006. This relief thus cannot be granted to the applicant for the reason that (1) the order whose quashing has been sought does not exist and further the same being barred by res judicata and having been decided and adjudicated between the parties.

6. Shri Singh further submits that the respondents have passed fresh order on 30.3.2007 after making necessary inquiry in terms of the Tribunal’s order dated 28.9.2006 in OA No.290/2006 whereby the compassionate appointment of the applicant in Group ‘D’ cadre that has earlier been approved vide letter of CPMG, UP Circle, Lucknow, was cancelled. The fresh order passed by the respondents vide their letter dated 30.3.2007 has not been challenged by the applicant in these proceedings. That being so the applicant cannot be granted any relief in terms of clauses (b) and (c) of para 8 of the Relief Clause of the Application. Shri Singh referred to in this regard to Para 11 of their counter reply wherein the order dated 30.3.2007 has been specifically mentioned along with the circumstances in which it had been passed by the respondents. Shri Singh further submitted that the applicant has filed his rejoinder to the counter reply filed by the respondents in the case and said rejoinder is conspicuously silent on the respondent’s letter dated 30.3.2007 referred to above. Shri Singh has drawn our attention in this regard to para 11 of the rejoinder. Unless and until the applicant challenges the respondent’s order dated 30.3.2007, the present Application seeking relief in terms of Para 8 thereof is not maintainable. It is not open to the applicant to challenge the same now after about five years of its passing as the same is barred by limitation. The question of limitation being a question of law can be raised at any point of time in a case even in the absence of any objection raised by the respondents in their written reply in this regard. The Tribunal is duty bound to look into this aspect of the matter and should dismiss the Application ex facie having been filed after the expiry of limitation. More so, when no request for condonation of delay in filing the Application has been made by the applicant as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No.7956/2011 (CC No.3709/2011) in the matter of D.C.S. Negi vs. Union of India and Others, decided on 07.03.2011.

7. The learned counsel for the respondents Shri Singh further submitted that compassionate appointment are provided as a special dispensation to mitigate the hardship, especially the financial hardship, arising on account of sudden death of the sole bread earner in the family. As such the same should be sought within a reasonable period from the date of death of the employee dying in harness. In the present case, the applicant sought compassionate appointment in 1992 when his father became invalidated on medical grounds. More than 22 years have lapsed since then. If the applicant could survive for 22 years, there is no warrant for giving any compassionate appointment at this stage. Shri Singh further submitted that it is a matter of common knowledge that courts have declined consideration of request of compassionate appointment after expiry of five - six years of the death of the Government servant. In the present case, the time gap is of about 22 years and the present Application has been filed after 21 years. Shri Singh further submitted that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It cannot be treated as either a lien or line of succession. In support of his proposition, learned counsel for the respondents Shri Singh relied upon the case of Haryana State Electricity Board and another vs. Hakim Singh, 199(1) AISLJ II 114, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court inter alia held that family which has survived for 14 years then compassionate appointment cannot be claimed so belatedly. Reference has also been made by Shri Singh to the case of Veer Mohd. Vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, 95 (2002) DELHI LAW TIMES 663 (DB). In this case, the petitioner who was minor at the time of death of his father applied for compassionate appointment eight years after the death yet held that the concept of social justice cannot be permitted to override constitutional mandate contained in Clause 2 of Article 16 of the Constitution.

8. The applicant’s counsel did not reply to the preliminary objections raised by the respondents’ counsel as referred to above. Instead he argued the matter on merits stating inter alia that the cancellation of the applicant’s appointment on compassionate ground is bad in law. More so, when they are offering appointments to other candidates. In support of this, he furnished a copy of respondent’s communication No.Rectt/M-5/80/77/7/L dt. at Lucknow, the 3.10.1980 offering appointment to one Shri Ashok Kumar S/o Late Shri Shyam Behari Lal addressed to Smt. Dulari Devi W/o Late Shri Shyam Behari Lal. Reliance on this letter of the respondents dated 3.10.1980 by the learned counsel for the applicant is misplaced as the applicant has been denied the compassionate appointment not on account of non-availability of vacancy but on account of his educational certificates being found not genuine. Furthermore, the applicant having not challenged the respondent’s communication dated 30.3.2007 whereby offer of appointment to the applicant on compassionate ground was cancelled, no relief in terms of present Application can be granted to the applicant as the order of cancellation dated 5.5.2005 having already been adjudicated in OA 290/2006 whereupon the fresh order dated 30.3.2007 having come into existence. The same order dated 5.5.2005 cannot now be agitated in the present Application. So long the order dated 30.3.2007 remains unchallenged, no relief to the applicant in terms of Clauses (b) and (c) of para 8 of the Relief Clause of the Application can be granted.

9. Having given my careful consideration to the submissions made by the respective parties as aforesaid and having gone through the records of the case, I am of the considered view that the applicant’s counsel has miserably failed to make out a case for grant of the relief as prayed for by the applicant and the Application is accordingly dismissed being devoid of substance.