Writ petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's order regarding compassionate appointment for the son of a deceased employee. Court dismissed the petition holding the Tribunal's view on cause of death as just and reasoned.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.(C) No. 1046 of 2021
conferencing.
Heard.
The petitioner in this writ petition challenges the order dated 07.09.2020 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in T.A. No. 10 of 2015.
The facts of the case of present respondents is that they are the legal heirs of one Jahangir Ansari, who was an employee under Rourkela Steel Plant, an unit of Steel Authority of India Ltd. While he was continuing in service he died. The legal heirs of the deceased employee applied to the authorities for extension of compassionate appointment in favour of opposite party no.2, who was the elder son of the deceased employee. Their representation was rejected vide order dated 13.07.1998. The respondents challenged the same by filing OJC No. 11954 of 1998. The said writ petition was transferred to Central Administrative Tribunal vide order dated 12.12.2014 for adjudication and after being transferred the same was registered as T.A. No. 10/2015.
The stand of the applicants before the Tribunal was that since the death of the deceased employee was on account of “Heart Stroke” and “Kidney Failure”, his son, i.e. the applicant no.2 is entitled for compassionate appointment as per the circular dated 01.01.1996 issued by the RSP with regard to compassionate appointment scheme. However, the stand of the respondents, who are the present petitioners is that the death of the deceased employee, who was referred to Birla Heart Research Centre, (BHRC), Calcutta was due to Multi Organ Dysfunction and Coronary Artery disease as
Arun
2
mentioned in the death certificate issued by BHRC. According to the present petitioners since the death of the deceased employee was not due to “Heart Stroke”, the applicant No.2 is not entitled for compassionate appointment as per circular dated 01.01.1996.
The Tribunal at paragraph-25 observed that no further inquiry and report from BHRC was called for by the respondents to ascertain whether ‘Heart Stroke’ could have been one of the cause of death besides the reason mentioned in the death certificate, taking into consideration the fact that the deceased employee was admittedly being treated for heart disease for which he was operated and while under treatment after operation, the patient had expired. One of the case of death was “coronary artery disease (operated) as mentioned in the death certificate, which shows that the deceased employee’s death was due to heart disease which could have aggravated during treatment and heart strokes could have been one of the cause although it was not mentioned in the death certificate. Further another cause of death as mentioned in the death certificate was “Multi-organ dysfunction” which could have included failure of heart and/kidnys also. “Failure of kidney” is one specified disease in circular dated 1.1.1996 as extracted in paragraph-15 of the order, for which the benefit of compassionate appointment is permissible. The Tribunal further observed that it is also a settled law that when there is a scheme for compassionate appointment, the claims for the same are required to be considered strictly in accordance with such scheme and such
3
claim cannot be rejected without examining all relevant facts and circumstances as laid down in the scheme. Accordingly the Tribunal directed to consider the claim in accordance with the circular dated 1.1.1996 keeping in mind the observations made in the order.
This Court also went through minutely the observations and analysis made by the Tribunal in the impugned order, so also the record. The Tribunal has rightly held that the petitioners failed to produce any document from BHRC to show that the cause of death is not due to “Heart Stroke”. This court agrees the view expressed by the Tribunal that Multi Organ Dysfunction which could have included failure of heart and or kidney also. It was also reflected that Failure of Kidney is one of the specified disease in circular dated 1.1.1996.
Thus, this Court is of the opinion that the Tribunal has passed a just and reasoned order and there is no error apparent on the face of it warranting interference by this Court.
The writ petition stands dismissed accordingly. The parties may utilize the soft copy of this order available in the High Court’s website or print out thereof at par with the certified copies in the manner prescribed vide Court’s Notice No.4587 dated 25.03.2020.
…………..………
…..…………..…………
4
Ansari
Steel Authority of India Ltd.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
