Dismissed

Harikrishnan B.v., v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited

Kerala HC3 Jul 2024OP (CAT)/198/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's rejection of compassionate appointment in BSNL. The court held the claimant was ineligible as terminal benefits exceeded the maximum threshold, and refused to deviate from the prescribed scheme.

What did the court decide?

The original petition filed before the High Court is dismissed.

Harikrishnan B.v., Vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Kerala HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL

¶4

&

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.

¶6

WEDNESDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF JULY 2024 / 12TH ASHADHA, 1946
OP (CAT) NO. 198 OF 2023

¶7

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT DATED 03.02.2023 IN

¶8

O.A. NO. 180/00987/2018 OF

¶9

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH

¶10

PETITIONER/S:

¶11

HARIKRISHNAN B.V.,
AGED 28 YEARS

¶12

S/O. LATE BABU, THIRUVATHIRA, PALAMKONAM, PERUMKULAM
P.O., ATTINGAL, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695102
BY ADVS.
M.R.SASITH
R.K.CHIRUTHA
NEELANJANA NAIR
ANJANA SURESH.E
REETHU JACOB

¶13

RESPONDENT/S:

¶14

1 BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, B.S. BHAWAN, HARISH CHANDER MATHUR LANE, JANPATH ROAD, NEW DELHI.REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, PIN - 110001

¶15

2 CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, BSNL KERALA CIRCLE THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033

¶16

3 DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER (HR), BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED, O/O. CGMT, BSNL, KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033

¶17

4 ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGERS (HR), O/O. CGMT, BSNL, KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695033

¶18

BY ADV V SANTHARAM

¶19

THIS OP (CAT) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.07.2024, THE
COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

OP (CAT) No.198 of 2023

¶21

¶22

J U D G M E N T

¶23

(Dated this the 3rd day of July, 2024)

¶24

Easwaran S.(J)

¶25

The petitioner aggrieved by the rejection of the
claim for compassionate appointment under BSNL,
approached the Central Administrative Tribunal. The
applicant’s father died on 13.03.2015 while he was
working in BSNL, Thiruvananthapuram as Junior Telecom
officer (JTO). The applicant had submitted an
application for compassionate appointment which was
rejected on 21.07.2017 finding that the petitioner
could secure only 22 points and the minimum cut off
was required at 55. The claim of the petitioner was,
as per point system for assessment of the conditions,
the respondent had not taken into consideration the
liability incurred by late Babu, father of the
petitioner, had the said liability taken been into
consideration, the petitioner could have succeeded in
getting the appointment.

¶26

OP (CAT) No.198 of 2023

¶27

¶28

2.The respondent appeared and contested the
claim and produced the scheme of compassionate
appointment dated 27.06.2007 which provides the
grading system on various heads. It was thus
contended that since the applicable terminal benefits
on account of the death of Sri.Babu exceeded 10
lakhs, no points was given. It was also found that
the the petitioner was residing in own house and
therefore no points were awarded under the grading
system. In so far as the contention of the applicant
that the liability on account of Sri.Babu was not
taken into consideration, it was pointed out that had
the said liability been taken into consideration,
even then, the petitioner could not have succeeded
because he still would not reach the cut off point of
55.

¶29

3.On a consideration of the rival claims, the
Tribunal came into conclusion that even if the
liability incurred by Sri.late Babu, around 6 lakhs
was adjusted, still the terminal benefits of the
deceased would cross 10 lakhs and therefore no
grading points could be awarded under the said head

¶30

OP (CAT) No.198 of 2023

¶31

¶32

and therefore found that the petitioner was totally
ineligible for compassionate appointment and
accordingly dismissed the original application.

¶33

4.We have heard the learned counsels for the
parties and perused the original petition and also
the documents annexed to it.

¶34

5.The claim for compassionate appointment is
governed by the scheme formulated by the Bharat
Sanchar Nigam Limited on 27.06.2007. As per clause
2.0 (II), the assessment criteria for recommendation
of indigent condition of the family is prescribed. It

¶35

is stated that under the said clause, the person
whose net points is below 55 shall be treated as non-
indigent and rejected. We have, in a similar case,
interpreted the very same scheme and held that in
cases where the net point of the individuals comes
below 55, such persons are not entitled to be
considered for compassionate appointment [RAJILA T.
VersusBHARAT SANCHAT NIGAM LIMITED in OP (CAT)
No.113/2018].

¶36

6.Though the learned counsel for the

¶37

petitioner submitted that the respondent have not

¶38

OP (CAT) No.198 of 2023

¶39

¶40

taken into consideration the liability of
petitioner’s father, which come to more than 6 lakhs,
no cogent materials have been placed before us to
assert this fact. Therefore, we cannot, on the basis
of submissions, decide the issue as to whether the
petitioner’s father had liability more than 6 lakhs.
The respondent have asserted in no categoric terms
that even if liability of petitioner’s father was
taken into account still, the petitioner would not
have achieved the threshold point of 55. We must
remember that compassionate appointment is not a
method of recruitment. But intended to take out the
family of the deceased from penury. When a clear cut
procedure has been prescribed by the Company, the
Court has no discretion to deviate from this Scheme
and order compassionate appointments merely on the
request of applicants. We must also note that the

¶41

scheme in question is not under challenge. We are
also mindful of the fact that the scheme has been
formulated by the respondent pursuant to the
directions issued by the Hon’be Supreme Court.

¶42

OP (CAT) No.198 of 2023

¶43

¶44

On a consideration of the legal and factual
aspects involved in the present original petition, we
are of the view that the Tribunal was perfectly
justified in dismissing original application. We do
not see illegality or infirmity in the order passed
by the Tribunal which warrants interference under
Article 226 of Constitution of India. Accordingly,
the original petition fails and the same is
dismissed.

¶45

Sd/-

¶46

AMIT RAWAL

¶47

JUDGE

¶48

Sd/-

¶49

EASWARAN S. JUDGE

¶50

SM

¶51

OP (CAT) No.198 of 2023

¶52

¶53

APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 198/2023

¶54

PETITIONER EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1TRUE COPY OF THE O.A. NO. 180/00987/2018
SEEKING COMPASSIONATE GROUND APPOINTMENT
(CGA) AT BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED (BSNL)
FILED BY THE PETITIONER ON THE FILES OF THE
HONORABLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
ERNAKULAM BENCH WITH ANNEXURES
Exhibit P2TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE
RESPONDENTS IN O.P. NO. 987 OF 2018 ON THE
FILE OF THE HON'BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH WITH ANNEXURES.
Exhibit P3TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 03.02.2023 IN
O.A. NO. 180/00987/2018 OF THE HONORABLE
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL.

¶55

RESPONDENTS' EXHIBITS:NIL

¶56

P.A.TO JUDGE

¶57

TRUE COPY

Harikrishnan B.v., v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harikrishnan B.v., v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Union of India Vs P. Venu

Jamal Vallil, Vs the Assistant Engineer

Paridabi U.P. Vs Union of India

Union of India Vs Shobana Kumari

United India Insurance Company Limited Vs P.J.George

Khadeeja Vs Valliyil Ummer