ORDER
Bharati Ray, Member (J)
1. Heard Mr. Sukumar, learned Counsel representing the counsel for the applicant and Mr. P. Phalguna Rao, learned Counsel for the respondents.
2. It is the case of the applicant that the husband of the applicant while working as Group ‘D’ employee in Income Tax Department in the office of the Joint Director, Visakhapatnam died on 24.8.1999, leaving the applicant and one daughter. The applicant got married to the said employee namely late Sri Srinivasa Rao in the year 1996. The applicant submitted a representation to the respondents requesting for providing compassionate appointment on 21.10.1999 which was received by the respondent’s office on 7.11.1999. Since no action has been taken on her representation, the applicant submitted serveral representations on 22.9.2000, 21.10.2000, 16.10.2000 and 24.10.2001. However, the 2nd respondent vide proceedings dated 5.9.2003 disposed of her representation by stating that the application of the applicant has been lodged as the maximum time limit for which a person’s name can be kept under consideration for offering the job on compassionate ground i.e. 3 years has elapsed. It was also mentioned therein that no further correspondence in this regard will be entertained. The said letter is annexed at page 23 of the OA. It is the contention of the applicant that the second respondent who has sent the letter is not the competent authority; secondly, the proceedings do not say that same have been issued with the approval of the first respondent which goes on to say that the proceedings ended at the level of the second respondent. Moreover, the proceedings do not say clearly as to whether the claim of the applicant was rejected or not. It is, therefore, the contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant that the word `lodged’ used in the letter dated 5.9.2003 has in fact given an impression to the applicant that the matter is still under consideration and, therefore, she was waiting for the outcome of the consideration of her application which was lodged as stated by the second respondent in letter dated 5.9.2003. However, the applicant submitted a representation thereafter for which she had received a letter from the 2nd respondent on 13.7.2004 whereby she has been informed that he case for compassionate appointment had already been rejected by the Committee and the same was communicated to the applicant vide letter dated 17.3.2004 and, therefore, no correspondence in this regard will be entertained. It is the contention of the applicant that she has never received the letter dated 17.3.2004 and that she has received the said letter along with the letter dated 13.7.2004 of the 2nd respondent. Therefore, she has approached this Tribunal questioning the letters dated 13.7.2004 and 17.3.2004 and praying for setting aside the impugned orders and for a direction to the respondents to consider her case for compassionate appointment on compassionate grounds and to appoint her in any of the posts for which she is eligible in accordance with law with all consequential benefits.
3. The respondents have contested the application by filing a counter reply. It is submitted by the respondents that the application submitted by the applicant dated 21.10.1999 requesting for providing her compassionate appointment was received by the office on 7.11.1999. It is the contention of the respondents that as per the DOP&T’s O.M. No. 14014/18/2000-Estt(D) dated 22.6.2001, the Committee constituted for the purpose of compassionate appointments should take into account the position regarding availability of vacancies ad limit its recommendation within the ceiling of 5% of vacancies falling under D.R. Quota in any Group `C’ or Group `D’ posts prescribed. Accordingly the Committee met as and when the vacancies were reported. After the instructions were issued, the case of the applicant was referred to the Screening Committee constituted for the purpose of recommending the names of eligible candidates and the same was considered by the Screening Committee on 17.12.2002, 28.3.2003 & on 17.2.2004. The Screening Committee which met on 17.12.2002 has observed that there were four applications which have already been approved for appointment on compassionate grounds but could not be given appointment due to non-availability of vacancies. Smt. Ammaji, w/o. late Sri Raju, Daftry whose name was mentioned by the applicant in his OA was one of the four candidates. The Committee made it clear that once the previous approved cases were given appointment or otherwise disposed of and vacancy position made available, it will consider the other pending cases. The case of the applicant was referred along with 50 other candidates to the Screening Committee on 16.7.2003. The Committee Chairman vide his letter dated 24.7.2003 has returned all the records and requested for deletion of all the pending applications which are more than 3 years old from the consideration list, in accordance with DOP&T’s O.M. dated 5.5.2003. A copy of the said instructions of DOP&T’s O.M. is annexed as Annex. R-I to the OA. It is, therefore, the case of the respondents that according to the said instructions of the Screening Committee, the applicant was informed vide Office Memorandum dated 5.9.2003 that he applications has been lodged for the reason that it was more than 3 years old. However, it is also mentioned by the respondents in page 3 of their counter reply that although she was informed that her case was lodged, her case was again referred to the Committee which met on 17.2.2004 after ascertaining the financial status of the applicant’s family. But the Screening Committee again rejected her case for want of vacancies and accordingly the applicant was informed vide office letter dated 17.3.2004 that her case has not been recommended by the Committee and it was lodged.
4. In view of the above facts and circumstances, I find that although the applicant’s husband died in the year 1999, her case for compassionate appointment was considered by the Screening Committee after the DOP&T O.M. dated 22.6.2001 (supra) was issued for the first time in the year 2002 and she has been considered even on 28.3.2003. But the Committee Chairman vide its letter dated 24.7.2003 returned all the records and requested for deletion of all the pending applications which are more than 3 years old from the consideration list in accordance with DOP&T’s O.M. dated 5.5.2003. A perusal of the instructions dated 5.5.2003 would show that these instructions are prospective in nature and earlier to the said instructions, the time limit for keeping such case pending for consideration for appointment on compassionate ground was one year and there were representations received by the Department that one year time limit prescribed for compassionate appointment is not reasonable and the same was considered and it was decided that if compassionate appointment to genuine and deserving cases, as per the guidelines contained in the OMs mentioned therein is not possible in the first year, due to non-availability of regular vacancy, the prescribed Committee may review such cases to evaluate the financial conditions of the family to arrive at a decision as to whether a particular case warrants extension by one more year, for consideration for compassionate appointment by the Committee subject to availability of a clear vacancy within the prescribed 5% quota. It is also made clear that if it is found on scrutiny by the Committee that the case is considered to be deserving, the name of such a person can be continued for consideration for one more year. The maximum time a person’s name can be kept under consideration for offering compassionate appointment will be three years, subject to the condition that the prescribed Committee has reviewed and certified the penurious condition of the applicant at the end of the first and the second year. After three years, if compassionate appointment is not possible to be offered to the applicant, his case will be finally closed, and will not be considered again. It is, therefore, very much clear from the said instructions that they are applicable only to the cases which have been filed in the Department after 5.5.2003 and prior to that, the time limit was one year only. However, I find that although the applicant’s husband died in the year 1999 and since the OM was issued in 2001 and the Committee thereafter met in 2002, the applicant’s case was considered not only once but thrice and the Committee has returned the case of the applicant on 24.7.2003 being more than three years old. The case of the applicant was once again considered by the Committee considering the penurious condition of the family of the applicant, but the same was not recommended by the Screening Committee and accordingly the applicant has been issued with the order impugned in this OA. That being the position, I do not find any reason to say that the respondents have not put any effort in considering the case of the applicant. In fact, although the instructions dated 5.5.2003 do not apply in her case, applicant’s case was considered for three times. However, I find that the word `lodged’ has wrongly been used in the impugned letters which has given an impression to the applicant that her case is still under consideration. I expect that in future, the respondents shall take care to use appropriate word in appropriate place in order to create right impression to the candidates concerned, particularly in case of compassionate appointment where family members of the deceased employee are facing lot of problems due to the sudden death of the bread earner.
5. In view of the facts and circumstances, I do not find any merit in the case. The OA is dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs.