IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 18813 of 2005(S)
1. K.B.SEBASTIAN, HOUSE, NO.14/515,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE &
... Respondent
2. CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND
3. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY,
For Petitioner :SRI.C.S.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR
For Respondent :SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MRS. Justice M.C.HARI RANI
Dated :15/07/2008
O R D E R
K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ.
-------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.18813 OF 2005
-------------------------------------
Dated this the 15th day of July, 2008
J U D G M E N T
~~~~~~~~~~~
Balakrishnan Nair, J.
The petitioner was the applicant in O.A.No.758/2004. He
was a claimant for appointment under the dying-in-harness
scheme. His father, who was an employee of the Central Excise
and Customs, retired from service on 22.10.1997 on medical
invalidation. Therefore, as per the scheme for employment on
compassionate grounds, he is also eligible to be considered for
appointment. The petitioner submitted an application on
7.11.1997. The said application was rejected, along with other
applications by Annexure A4 order dated 22.09.2004, produced
along with the memorandum of original application in
O.A.No.758/2004. The said order was challenged before the
Central Administrative Tribunal in the said O.A. That Original
Application was dismissed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal by Ext.P1 order. Going by Ext.P1, it would appear that
the C.A.T. did not call for the records to find out whether the
W.P.(C) No.18813/2005 2
petitioner’s application was considered fairly. Serial No.5 in
Annexure A4, Mr.M.Jayan, apart from others challenged
Annexure A4 before the C.A.T. In that case, the C.A.T called for
the records and certain distressing facts were disclosed. The
main ground relied on in Annexure A4 was that they could not be
accommodated within three years of their application for
employment. But, the records showed that within three years the
committee never met for considering the case of the applicants.
The Original Application filed by Serial No.1 in Annexure A4
was dismissed by the C.A.T. That was challenged before this
Court. This Court by judgment dated 21.6.2007 in W.P.(C)
No.10432/2005 remanded the matter for fresh consideration in
accordance with law. After remand, his O.A. was also allowed.
That decision was again challenged by this Court by filing W.P.
(C) No.17279/2008 which was dismissed in limine by this Court.
2. In view of the above facts, the petitioner submits, the
rejection of his application on the ground that within three years,
since appointment could not be given to him, his application
cannot be considered is manifestly illegal. So, the petitioner
W.P.(C) No.18813/2005 3
prays the matter may be remitted to the C.A.T. for fresh disposal
as was done by this Court in W.P(C) No.10432/2005.
3. The respondents vehemently opposes the prayers in
the writ petition. They submit that the decision of this Court in
W.P.(C)No.10432/82008 is distinguishable on facts and
therefore, there is no necessity for remanding this matter.
4. We considered the rival submissions. In Annexure A4,
it is stated as follows:
“The maximum time a person’s name can
be kept under consideration for offering
compassionate appointment will be 3(Three)
years. After three years, if compassionate
appointment is not possible to be offered to the
applicant his/her case will be finally closed and
will not be considered again.
The time limit of three years for
compassionate appointment may be decided
with reference to the date of death or
retirement on medical grounds of a
Government servant. However, in case of
minor, the date on which the applicant attains
the minimum age for appointment in
Government Service should be taken for the
purpose.
W.P.(C) No.18813/2005 4
All concerned are requested that the
pending cases of compassionate appointment
may be processed accordingly.”
After stating so, it is further stated that the time limit for
considering petitioner’s application expired on 21.10.2000 and
therefore he is ineligible for consideration for appointment any
further. But, Ext.P5 would show that the applications of various
candidates in which the breadwinners’ death took place between
1997 and 2004 were given appointment in 2004. Further, as
submitted by the petitioner, the C.A.T. in O.A.No.757/2004
found that the committee appointed to decide on the claim of the
applicants for employment under the dying-in-harness scheme
never met in three years after the submission of the petitioner’s
application. So the ground taken in Annexure A4 is untenable.
Therefore, we find it difficult to sustain Ext.P1 order of the
C.A.T. Accordingly, it is quashed. The matter is remitted to the
C.A.T. for fresh disposal of the above said Original Application,
in accordance with law. The C.A.T shall call for the records and
also given a chance to the writ petitioner to produce the
additional pleadings, if any. The Tribunal shall endeavour to
dispose of the matter, as expeditiously as possible, preferably,
W.P.(C) No.18813/2005 5
within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this
judgment.
The writ petition is disposed of as above.
(K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE)
(M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE)
ps