Dismissed

Binutha Thomas v. Union of India

Kerala HC25 May 2016OP (CAT)/191/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court observed that substantial relief had already been obtained via a review committee decision and an interim order. The court closed the original petition but directed the respondent to finalise the compassionate appointment issue within four months using the 9-point criteria excluding GPF.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner's Original Petition closed, directed to finalize compassionate appointment within four months under standard excluding GPF.

Binutha Thomas Vs Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON &

¶4

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶5

WEDNESDAY, THE 25TH DAY OF MAY 2016/4TH JYAISHTA, 1938

¶6

OP (CAT).No. 191 of 2015 (Z)

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN OA NO 776/2014 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH DATED 04-09-2015

¶8

PETITIONER/PETITIONER IN OA:-:

¶9

BINUTHA THOMAS, W/O.LATE THOMAS T.JOSEPH (SCIENTIFIC ASSISTANT, INDIA METEROLOGICAL DEPARTMENT), RESIDING AT THYPARAMBIL HOUSE, VALAYAMKUZHY, MOSCO, THRICKODITHANAM P.O., CHANGANACHERRY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT.

¶10

BY ADVS.SRI.RINNY STEPHEN CHAMAPARAMPIL SMT.ASHA ELIZABETH MATHEW

¶11

SRI.NIRMAL V NAIR

¶12

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:-:

¶13

UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF EARTH SCIENCES, MAHASAGAR BHAVAN BLOCK-12, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110 003.

¶14

DIRECTOR GENERAL OF METEROLOGY, INDIAN METEROLOGICAL DEPARTMENT, MAUSAM BHAVAN, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI - 110 003.

¶15

R1&2 BY ADV. SRI.N.NAGARESH, ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL

¶16

THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25-05-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶17

OP (CAT).No. 191 of 2015 (Z)

¶18

APPENDIX

¶19

PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS :-

¶20

----------------------EXHIBIT P1. A TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DATED 04.09.2015 IN O.A.776/2014 ON THE FILES OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH. EXHIBIT P2. A TRUE COPY OF THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION. EXHIBIT P3. A TRUE COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS. EXHIBIT P4. A TRUE COPY OF THE REJOINDER FILED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶21

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS :- NIL.

¶22

True copy

¶23

P.A to Judge

¶24

P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JJ.

¶25

O.P.(CAT)No.191 of 2015

¶26

Dated this the 25^th day of May, 2016

¶27

JUDGMENT

¶28

Ramachandra Menon, J.

¶29

The petitioner is before this Court being aggrieved of the nature and extent of relief stated as given by the Tribunal with regard to the claim for compassionate appointment.

¶30

The prayer raised in the original petition is as given

¶31

below:-

¶32

(i) To set aside Exhibit P1 to the extent it rejects the challenge of the petitioner against the 9 point criteria system for deciding the most deserving cases for appointment on compassionate ground as being unconstitutional and ultra vires the scheme for compassionate appointment contained in the O.M.No.14014/6/94-Estt.(D) dated 9.10.1998 issued by the Department of Personnel and Training and to allow the Original Application No.776/2014 on the files of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench as prayed for.

¶33

O.P.(CAT)No.191 of 2015

¶34

¶35

As a matter of fact the claim for compassionate

¶36

appointment pursuant to death of the husband of the petitioner, who was working as Scientific Assistant under the 2^nd respondent who bid farewell to this world on 9.10.2008 was not considered favourably which made her to approach the Tribunal with the following prayers:-

¶37

“i. To call for the records leading to Annexure-A12 and quash the same;

¶38

ii. To declare that the applicant's case for compassionate appointment ought to be considered based on O.M.No.14014/6/94-Estt. (D) dated 9.10.1998 adhering to the 9 point criteria system with score point 50 against 5% of total vacancies in the cadre of Gr.C and Gr.D;

¶39

iii. To declare that the applicant is entitled to have her case for compassionate appointment considered for consecutive times irrespective of the time elapsed from the date of death of the applicant's husband or the date of application for compassionate appointment and to direct the respondents to consider the

¶40

O.P.(CAT)No.191 of 2015

¶41

¶42

applicant's request according to such declaration;

¶43

iv. To declare that Annexure A1 to the extent it does not grant points for the liabilities and debts of the deceased employee's family is unconstitutional and ultra vires the scheme for compassionate appointment promulgated by the DOPT vide G.I.Dept. of Pers. & Trg. O.M.No.14014/6/94-Estt.(D) dated 9.10.1998;

¶44

v. To direct the respondents to consider the applicant's application afresh for appointment on compassionate grounds by granting points for the liabilities owed by her husband in addition to the points entitled as per A-1 and also to grant points accordingly.”

¶45

The claim was resisted by the Government/ Department on various grounds. Finally after hearing Ext.P1 verdict came to be passed by the Tribunal. The operative portion as disclosed from paragraph 17 is in the following terms:-

¶46

“17. Taking stock of the facts, circumstances and the dicta of the various judicial pronouncements we direct the respondents to keep open Annexure A/5 application of the applicant for appointment on

¶47

O.P.(CAT)No.191 of 2015

¶48

¶49

compassionate grounds and to consider her case repeatedly even against technical posts of Group C & D levels in terms of Annexure A/17 OM dt. 19.1.2007 issued by the DOPT. If no posts are available, respondents shall send her case to other Government Departments also for consideration subject to the availability of vacancies set apart for appointment on compassionate ground in such departments.”

¶50

Since the said direction was quite inadequate in all respects, the applicant in the O.A. approached this Court by filing this Original Petition with the prayers extracted hereinbefore.

¶51

When the matter came up for consideration before this

¶52

Court on 2.3.2016, an interim order was passed referring to the ongoing exercise to review the promotion of the petitioner and others concerned by constituting a review committee and accordingly appropriate directions were issued also directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner excluding the GPF from the total assets left by the Government servant while considering the claim in tune with 9 point norms. Subsequently I.A.No.633/2016 was filed by the respondents in the O.P.

¶53

O.P.(CAT)No.191 of 2015

¶54

¶55

pointing out that based on the instruction given by the DoPT the matter was considered at length and it was decided to consider to review all similar cases which spread over for the period 19932015 particulars of which have been given in paragraphs 4 and 5 of the affidavit dated 20^th May, 2016 in support of the I.A. The I.A. sought for modification of the order dated 2.3.2016 in view of the decision already taken by the petitioners in the I.A./Government. We have passed a separate order in the said I.A. enabling the respondents in the O.P. to consider and finalise the matter excluding the elements of GPF, gratuity, etc. based on the decision and direction given by the Ministry. In the above circumstance we find that substantial relief has already been obtained to the petitioner in terms of the relief sought for in the

¶56

O.A. and the Original Petition.

¶57

Accordingly this Original Petition is closed directing the respondent to finalise the issue at the earliest at any rate within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.

¶58

The learned Assistant Solicitor General submits that nearly hundred cases are there and data has to be collected from

¶59

O.P.(CAT)No.191 of 2015

¶60

¶61

different corners in view of the changed circumstances which is a time consuming process.

¶62

Taking note of the facts and figures and also considering the

¶63

fact that the claim was pending for several years the respondents are directed to finalise the proceedings in accordance with the changed norms at the earliest at any rate within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. All other issues raised in the O.A. and this Original Petition are left open.

¶64

Sd/- P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE

¶65

Sd/- ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE

¶66

skj

¶67

True copy

¶68

P.A to Judge

Binutha Thomas v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Binutha Thomas v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B. Sasidharan Nair Vs Union of India

K.B. Antony Vs State of Kerala

K.Achuthan Nair Vs State of Kerala

Pookoya N.P Vs the Administrator, Union Territory

Rajesh Kumar G Vs State of Kerala

Rajendran Nair Vs Satheesan and Others.