Union Of India vs Syam Krishna on 25 May, 2010

       

  

  

 
 
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

WP(C).No. 26859 of 2009(S)


1. UNION OF INDIA
                      ...  Petitioner
2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL
3. THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL

                        Vs



1. SYAM KRISHNA
                       ...       Respondent

                For Petitioner  :SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC

                For Respondent  :SMT.S.KARTHIKA

The Hon'ble MR. Justice THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
The Hon'ble MR. Justice S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN

 Dated :25/05/2010

 O R D E R
         THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN
         & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ.
        ---------------------------------------
              W.P.(C)No.26859 of 2009
        ---------------------------------------
       Dated this the 25th day of May, 2010

                     JUDGMENT

THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.

The respondent is the unfortunate heir

of a postman, who died in harness. The Circle

Relaxation Committee {for short “CRC”} took the

view that he is not entitled to compassionate

appointment, on the ground that the widow of

late official is drawing family pension. We have

necessarily to ignore the further statement of

the CRC that “keeping in view the assets and

liabilities of the family, the request cannot

be recommended”. The CRC has not made any actual

assessment of the assets and liabilities of the

family, which could have denuded the applicant

of the entitlement for compassionate

appointment. The CRC’s decision was not

interfered with by the appellate authority. The

Tribunal set aside the decision of the appellate

authority and directed reconsideration by the

appellate authority.

2. The Department has filed this writ

petition under Article 227 of the Constitution

W.P.(C)No.26859 of 2009

:: 2 ::

of India, essentially pointing out that the so

called appellate authority is not an appellate

authority and there is no such authority to sit

in appeal over the decision of the CRC.

3. Though this is a technical argument

on the question of jurisdiction, having perused

the facts, we are of the firm view that the

decision of the CRC, as noted above, resulting in

the refusal of compassionate appointment, is

totally perverse, unreasonable, illegal,

capricious and violative of Article 14 of the

Constitution. On the facts and circumstances, it

also violates the fundamental rights guaranteed

under Article 21 of the Constitution, being a

matter relating to compassionate appointment.

4. We may note that the family pension

granted to the officer’s family is Rs.2025/- upto

12.10.2010, which hereafter gets reduced to

Rs.1,275/-. Obviously, there was no material to

reject the claim for compassionate appointment on

a ground referable to the total income of the

family. We also notice that the facts noticed by

W.P.(C)No.26859 of 2009

:: 3 ::

the Tribunal viz., that the deceased officer had

availed a housing loan and had put up a home in a

5 cents plot and the DCRG amount was adjusted

against that loan etc., are not disputed by the

official respondents. Under such circumstances,

we are of the considered view that the Central

Administrative Tribunal, having found that the

decision of the CRC itself was perverse, ought to

have directed compassionate appointment to be

given to the petitioner, rather than to remit the

matter to the appellate authority. We take the

aforesaid view in the back drop of the situation

that the Department assails the decision of the

Central Administrative Tribunal on the only

ground that he makes has been remitted to an

incompetent authority. There is no challenge to

the findings on facts. Nothing stood in the way

of the Central Administrative Tribunal allowing

the respondent’s application in toto. In our

considered view, ends of justice will not be met,

if the impugned order on facts is upheld and

relief moulded accordingly.

W.P.(C)No.26859 of 2009

:: 4 ::

5. Under such circumstances, to do

complete justice and to effectuate the

fundamental rights of the applicant, we quash the

impugned order of the Central Administrative

Tribunal to the extent it proceeds to remit the

matter to the “appellate authority” over CRC. We

direct that the original application before the

Tribunal will stand allowed in toto, thereby

enabling the applicant to get compassionate

appointment, following this judgment, under the

Compassionate Appointment Scheme. Let this be

given effect to within two months from now.

Writ petition is ordered as above.

Sd/-

(THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN)
JUDGE

Sd/-

(S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN)
JUDGE

sk/
//true copy//

P.S. to Judge.