Central Administrative Tribunal - ErnakulamFrancis Lawrence vs Director on 3 November, 2016CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
                     ERNAKULAM BENCH

                         O.A No. 180/00562/2015

               Thursday, this the 3rd day of November, 2016.
CORAM:
   HON'BLE Mr. U. SARATHCHANDRAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER

         Francis Lawrence,
         S/o. Lawrence (late),
         Geetha Bhavan, TC 11/1657,
         Plamoodu, Kowdiar (P.O),
         Thiruvananthapuram.                                 -    Applicant

[By Advocate Mr. Babu Cherukara]

                   Versus

1.       Director,
         Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO),
         Head Quarters, Anthreeksh Bhavan,
         New Bell Road, Bangalore - 560 231.

2.       The Controller,
         Liquid Propulsion Systems Centre,
         Valiyamala, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 547.

3.       Senior Administrative Officer,
         Space Liquid Propulsion Systems Centre,
         Valiyamala, Thiruvananthapuram - 695 547.       -       Respondents

[By Advocate Mr. N. Anilkumar, Senior PCGC (R)]

         The application having been heard on 01.11.2016, the Tribunal on
03.11.2016 delivered the following:
                         ORDER:Per: Mr. U. Sarathchandaran, Judicial Member

         Applicant is aggrieved by Annexure A-1 communication issued

by the respondents for not considering his request for appointment on

compassionate ground. His father Shri J. Lawrence who was working in

the ISRO Liquid Propulsion Systems Centre, Thiruvananthapuram as

Tradesman died in harness on 21.05.1992 due to an accident, leaving
behind the applicant who was then only a 7 year old boy and his mother.

When he attained the age of 18 years, he applied for compassionate

appointment which was rejected by Annexure A-3 order in 2004.

However, by Annexure A-4 communication dated 04.01.2006, the

respondent authorities decided to review all the applications for

compassionate appointment and accordingly the applicant also was

asked to send the proforma with the requisite documents. He sent the

proforma duly filled up and documents along with Annexure A-5

covering letter dated 17.01.2006. Applicant alleges that respondents did

not act upon despite he sending Annexure A-6 representation dated

23.02.2012 till they sent Annexure A-1 reply rejecting his request for

appointment on compassionate grounds. According to the applicant,

although his mother was employed as a Stenographer in Keltron, the

family had certain liabilities towards house building advance and even

now the family is living in a rented house. According to the applicant,

his mother has retired from service and even while she was in service in

Keltron, the salary and family pension she received was not sufficient

for meeting the liabilities and the family was under financial strain.

Applicant,   therefore,   prays   for   setting   aside   Annexure   A-1

communication and also for directing the respondents to provide

employment on compassionate ground.2.       The O.A was resisted by the respondents contending that as

the father of the applicant expired on 21.05.1992 the highly belated
claim of the applicant made in 2004 could not be considered and that it

was informed to the applicant vide Annexure A-3. The request of the

applicant was rejected as his mother, the widow of the late J. Lawrence

was employed as a Senior Stenographer in Keltron and was drawing a

salary of Rs. 8,357/- and was getting a family pension of Rs.1357/-. Her

family pension was subsequently revised to Rs. 4050/- with effect from

01.01.2016 based on the VIthCPCrecommendations.           Respondents

contend that since the object of compassionate appointment was for

providing immediate assistance to the family of the deceased employee

for preventing it from falling into penurious condition due to the death

of the earning member and to tide over the sudden crisis. Respondents

pray for rejecting the O.A.3.       Heard the learned counsel for the applicant and respondents.

Perused the record.4.       As contended by the respondents, the object of the Scheme for

appointment on compassionate ground is to assist the family of the

deceased employee to tide over the financial crisis due to the sudden

cessation of the salary income of the deceased employee and to prevent

the family from falling in to destitution. It has to be noted that the

employee, the father of the applicant died on 21.05.1992 and that at that

time the widow was working as Stenographer in the Keltron which is a

Government of Kerala undertaking. True, the applicant was only 7 years

old then. Only after the applicant attained majority the request for

appointment on compassionate ground was made. According to the
applicant, at present his mother is retired and he is left without any job

and the family is facing financial difficulties. It is difficult to appreciate

the above contentions after a long lapse of time since the death of

employee was in 1992. Annexure A-6 representation of the applicant

addressed to the respondents to indicate that as on 23.02.2012 he was

working in a private firm. There is nothing in record to show that soon

after the death of Shri. Lawrence the family was in abject financial

condition without any means of livelihood.           Since the Scheme on

compassionate ground is an exception to the rules governing the

recruitment for public employment, such appointments can be only in

accordance with the scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds,

not on other grounds.5.         Referring to para 10 of Annexure A-9 copy of the scheme for

appointment on compassionate grounds learned counsel for the applicant

submitted that even if there an earning member in the family, the

application for appointment can be considered. However on a careful

reading of para 10 of the Annexure A-9 scheme it can be seen that in

such cases application for compassionate appointment can be considered

only if the earning member is not in support of other members of the

family. Applicant has no case that his mother who was an earning

member was not supporting him.6.        Taking stock of the facts and circumstances of the Scheme, it

appears that the applicant is seeking an appointment in the place of his
father's employment. If such applications are allowed at a distant point

of time, without considering the financial aspects of the family at the

time of the death of the employee, it would amount to appointment on

hereditary basis which is not permissible as per      the Constitutional

scheme of public employment. In the instant case as the mother of the

applicant was well employed and as she was getting family pension also

in addition to her own salary it cannot be said that family was in a

penurious condition despite the family had some financial problems.7.       In the above circumstance this Tribunal is not inclined to allow

the O.A. The Original Application is dismissed. No order as to costs.(Dated, this the 3rd November, 2016.)



                                           (U. SARATHCHANDRAN)
                                              JUDICIAL MEMBER


ax