BEFORE HON’BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR, M.P.

O.A. No. of 2021

APPLICANTS : Renu Shrivas

Versus
RESPONDENTS : Bharat Sanchar Nagar Ltd. and others

INDEX

S.No. Description of Documents Annexure Page No.

1. Index 1

2. Synopsis 2

3. Date Chart 3-4

4. Original application with affidavit 5-12

Copy of Guidelines by Government

5. A/1 13-14
of India dated 09.10.1998

Copy guidelines issued by BSNL,

6. A/2
head office dated 27.06.2007

Copy of identity card of the

7. A/3
applicants deceased husband

Copy of the deceased’s death

8. A/4
certificate dated 21.02.2011

Copy of first representation made by

9. A/5
applicant dated 12.04.2011
Copy of second representation made
10. A/6
by the applicant dated 08.08.2011

Copy of application filed by the

11. A/7
applicant dated 07.07.12
Copy of complaint filed with PMO
12. A/8
dated 29.07.17
Copy of the order by BSNL dated
13. A/9
17.03.2018
Copy of fresh representation made
14. A/10
by the applicant dated 09.10.2020
A copy of order by Senior General
15. A/11
Manager of BSNL dated 02.11.2020
16. Vakalatnama

Place: Jabalpur RAHUL GUPTA

Date: Counsel for Applicant
 BEFORE HON’BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR, M.P.

O.A. No. / of 2021

APPLICANTS : Renu Shrivas

Versus
RESPONDENTS : Bharat Sanchar Nagar ltd and others

SYNOPSIS

The applicant by way of present original application is

challenging the impugned orders dated 17.03.2018 (ANNEXURE –
A/9) and dated 02.11.2020 (ANNEXURE-A/11) whereby the Chief
General Manager of Telecom Factory, Jabalpur and Senior General
Manger of Telecom Factory, Jabalpur have rejected the application of
the applicant for compassionate appointment of her son and
daughter respectively. The final impugned orders dated 17.03.2018
and 02.11.2020 on face of record is palpable order, contrary to
principles of natural justice, non-speaking, reasons are heart and
soul of order, based on vitiated enquiry, and are not in consonance
with Central government’s guidelines of compassionate appointment
(ANNEXURE- A1) and the Rule 8.0 of guidelines issued by BSNL
head office, Delhi dated 27.06.2007 (ANNEXURE – A/2)

Place: Jabalpur RAHUL GUPTA

Date: Counsel for Applicant

 BEFORE HON’BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR, M.P.

O.A. No. 200/ of 2021

APPLICANTS : Renu Shrivas

Versus
RESPONDENTS : Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd and others

DATE CHART

S.No
DATE EVENTS
.

The Central Government introduced the

1. 09.10.1998
scheme for compassionate appointment

The BSNL, Head office, Delhi issued

2. 27.06.2007 guidelines for compassionate appointment in
BSNL
Death of Shree Arun Kumar Shrivas during
3. 16.01.2011 his service at Telecom Factory, BSNL,
Jabalpur
The applicant w/o late shree Arun Kumar
made the first representation to the Chief
4. 12.04.2011
General Manager, Telecom Factory, BSNL,
Jabalpur
The applicant w/o late shree Arun Kumar
made the second representation to the Chief
5. 08.08.2011
General Manager, Telecom Factory, BSNL,
Jabalpur

The applicant made the formal application as

6. 07.07.12 per the guidelines of BSNL for compassionate
appointment.

Applicant filed a complaint with the PMO for

7. 29.07.17 no response to her representations for
compassionate appointment.
8. 17.03.2018 Chief General Manager, Telecom Factory,
Jabalpur issued an order as response to the
applicant’s representation and rejected her
claim of compassionate appointment for her
 son.
A copy of fresh representation filed by the
9. 09.10.2020 applicant for the compassionate appointment
of her daughter.
An order was issued by the Senior General
Manager, Telecom Factory, Jabalpur which
without consideration on merits rejected the
10. 02.11.2020
application for compassionate appointment
without passing a reasoned order in a
whimsical manner.

Place: Jabalpur RAHUL GUPTA

Date: 16.02.2021 Counsel for Applicant
 BEFORE HON’BLE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR, M.P.

O.A. No. / of 2021

APPLICANT: Renu Shrivas,

W/o late shree Arun Kumar
Shrivas, aged about 62 years,
R/o 509, Sadar Street no. 10,
Sadar Bazar, Jabalpur 482001

versus

RESPONDENTS:

1. Union of India

Through its Chief General

manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam
Limited, Telecom Factory, Wright
Town Jabalpur

2. Union of India

Through its Senior General

Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam
Limited Telecom Factory, Wright
Town Jabalpur.

APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 19 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE

TRIBUNAL ACT. 1985

1. PARTICULARS OF THE ORDER AGAINST WHICH THE

APPLICATION IS MADE:

i. Order Dated: 17.03.2018 (ANNEXURE – A/9) & 02.11.2020

(ANNEXURE – A/11)

ii. Passed in: TFJ/Admin/CPGRMS/2017-18 & MC-

110/JB/CGA/2020-21/113
 iii. Order passed by: Respondent No. 1 & Respondent 2
respectively.

iv. Subject Matter in brief: The applicant is challenging the

inaction of the respondent regarding the compassionate
appointment of the daughter of the deceased late Shri. Arun
Kumar Shrivas as per the Compassionate Appointment Scheme
under Central Government dated 09.10.1998 (ANNEXURE –
A/1) introduced by the Ministry of Personnel, Public
Grievances and Pensions (Department of Personnel & Training)
O.M. No. 14014/6/94-Estt(D). The applicant is also
challenging two orders dated 17.03.2018 and 02.11.2020. the
order No. TFJ/Admin/CPGRMS/2017-18 dated 17.03.2018.
passed by the respondent no. 1. The order no. MC-
110/JB/CGA/2020-21/113 dated 02.11.2020 is passed by the
respondent no.2. The impugned orders on face of record shows
the inaction of the BSNL authorities in the compassionate
appointment of the applicant (ANNEXURE –A/9). The orders
are contrary to the principles of natural justice as it was
passed after a delay of almost 7 years. The first representation
was made by the mother of the applicant and the widow of the
deceased dated 12.04.2011 through a letter addressed to the
Chief General Manager, Telecom Factory, BSNL, Jabalpur
(ANNEXURE – A/5). Moreover, the orders are not reasoned
therefore remains arbitrary in nature. This also violates the
objective of the scheme for Compassionate appointment which
is to relieve the family of the government servant concerned
from financial destitution.

2. JURISDICTION OF TRIBUNAL:
The applicant deserves that present O.A. filed challenging order
dated 17.03.2018 and order dated 02.11.2020 by respondent
no.1 and respondent no. 2 respectively is well within
jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Tribunal.

3. LIMITATION:
The applicant further declares that final orders dated
17.03.2018 (ANNEXURE-A/9) and 02.11.2020 (ANNEXURE-
A/11) are impugned in the present O.A. and same are within
 limitation prescribed under section 21 of the Administrative
Tribunal Act, 1985.

4. FACTS OF THE CASE:

4.1 That, the Central Government through the Ministry of

Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of
Personnel & Training) O.M. No. 14014/6/94-Estt(D) dated
09.10.1998 introduced the scheme for compassionate
appointment of the dependent of the deceased government
employee who died on service. A copy of the guidelines is
marked and filed as ANNEXURE – A/1.

4.2 That the guidelines issued by the BSNL head office, New Delhi
dated 27.06.2007 through a letter no. 273-18/2005-Pers-IV
lays the procedure for the evaluation of any application for
compassionate appointment. A copy of the letter is filed and
marked as ANNEXURE – A/2.

4.3 That, the husband Late Shree. Arun Kumar Shrivas of the
applicant was a Technician I (electrician) and a regular
employee to the Bharat Sanchar Nagar Limited (BSNL), Telecom
Factory, Wright Town, Jabalpur. A copy of the identity card of
late Shree. Arun Kumar Shrivas is marked and filed as
ANNEXURE –A/3.

4.4 That, on 16.01.2011 the husband of applicant died while being

on the service. A copy of the death certificate of the deceased is
filed as ANNEXURE – A/4.

4.5 That, the applicant that is the widow of the deceased Shree.
Arun Kumar Shrivas made a representation for the
compassionate appointment of her son, before the Chief
General Manager of the BSNL Telecom Factory, Jabalpur
through a letter dated 12.04.2011. A copy of the letter is
marked and filed as ANNEXURE –A/5.

4.5 That, another representation was made by the applicant

through a letter dated 08.08.2011 addressed to Chief General
Manager, BSNL Telecom Factory, Jabalpur for the
compassionate appointment of her son. A copy of the letter
dated 08.08.2011 is being marked and filed as ANNEXURE-
A/6.
4.6 That the applicant filed the application under the
Compassionate Appointment Scheme by the Central
Government dated 09.10.1998 introduced by the Ministry of
Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions (Department of
Personnel & Training) O.M. No. 14014/6/94-Estt(D) through
an application dated 07.07.12 for the compassionate
appointment of her son. A copy of the application is being
marked and filed as ANNEXURE – A/7.

4.7 That the applicant filed a grievance to the Prime Minister Office
dated 29.07.17 registration no. PMOPG/D/2018/011520 as
there was no communication from the end of BSNL authorities
to the representations filed by the applicant dated 12.04.2011
and 08.08.2011 respectively and the application made under
the compassionate scheme dated 07.07.12. A copy of the
grievance is being marked and filed as ANNEXURE – A/8.

4.8 That the applicant received an order no.

TFJ/Admin/CPGRMS/2017-18 dated 17.03.2018 from the
Chief General Manager, BSNL, Telecom Factory, Jabalpur in
response to the grievance submitted to the Prime Minister
Office.
The letter specified that application for the compassionate
appointment of applicants son has been rejected as per the
guidelines of the BSNL Head Office, New Delhi. The order
further mentions a letter RE-14/CGA-HPC/2015-16/25 dated
05-10-2015 through which the representation was rejected.
The letter was however not brought to the notice of the
applicant and it is only through the order dated 17.03.2018 it
was brought to the notice of the applicant after 3 years. A copy
of the letter is marked and filed as ANNEXURE – A/9.

4.09 That the applicant has filed a new representation dated

09.10.2020 to the Chief General Manager of BSNL, Telecom
Factory Jabalpur for the compassionate appointment of her
daughter. The applicant seeks the compassionate appointment
of her daughter Ku. Anjana Shrivas. A copy of the application is
marked and filed as ANNEXURE – 10.

4.10 That the Senior General Manager of Telecom Factory, BSNL,

Jabalpur vide order no. MC-110/JB/CGA/2020-21/113 dated
02.11.2020. The order rejected the representation of the
 applicant filed for the compassionate appointment of her
daughter dated 09.10.2020 by referring to the order dated
17.03.2018 and without any clarification for such rejection.
The aforesaid rejection order was not passed on merits of the
case but was rejected without passing a reasoned order in a
whimsical and arbitrary manner. A copy of the letter dated
02.11.2020 if marked and filed as ANNEXURE-11.

5. GROUNDS

5.1 That the impugned order dated 17.03.2018 issued by the

respondent no.1 and impugned order dated 02.11.2020 issued
by respondent no. 2 are arbitrary and violates the rights of the
applicant for compassionate appointment.

5.2 That the impugned letter dated 17.03.2018 was received by the
applicant after almost 8 years of the first representation and
was sent to the applicant only after the intervention of Prime
Minister’s office. There was an unnecessary delay for the
intimation. The guideline number 8.0 (273-18/2005-Pers-IV )
mandates the respondent to intimate any such development to
the applicant, however a time of lapse of 8 years doesn’t stand
the test of reasonable time and violates all the principles of
natural justice.

5.3 That guideline no. 8.0 of the letter no. 273-18/2005-Pers-IV

mandates the Corporate office to intimate the respective circles
for the follow up on the request and to further inform the
candidate for acceptance or rejection or wait listing etc.
ANNEXURE –A/2 can be referred for the same.

5.4 That the applicant is challenging the inaction of the respondent

which is against their own guidelines of intimating to the
candidate of status. The intimation was only made when the
applicant filed a grievance with the Prime Minister’s Office.
There was an unnecessary delay of almost 8 years from the
date of first representation and almost 7 years after formal
application.

5.5 That the letter dated 17.03.2018 is arbitrary and violates the
rights of the applicant for compassionate appointment as it was
sent to the applicant beyond the period of reasonable time. The
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar
 (2015) 7 SCC 412 has laid down basic principles for the
consideration of compassionate appointment. The court has
held that the ‘an application for compassionate employment
must be preferred without any undue delay and has to be
considered within a reasonable period of time.’

5.6 That the order dated 17.03.2018 further mentions a letter RE-
14/CGA-HPC/2015-16/25 dated 05-10-2015 through which
the representation was rejected. The letter was however not
brought to the notice of the applicant and it is only through the
order dated 17.03.2018 it was brought to the notice of the
applicant after 3 years that too as a reply of the complaint filed
by the applicant before the PMO, clearly showing that the
authorities have worked in an arbitrary manner without even
properly considering the case of applicant on the merit.

5.7 That respondents through a letter dated 17.03.2018 has only

intimated that the son of the applicant has not been selected.
Further, the respondent has not mentioned that the son of the
applicant has received 34 marks in the indigent category of
selection, which is less than the cut off of 55 marks. Further,
respondent has not specified the evaluation process and the
details of how the marks were calculated. The impugned order
dated 02.11.2020 relied upon the order dated 17.03.2018 for
rejecting the application for compassionate appointment.
Therefore, both the orders are not reasoned.

5.8 That, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vishnu Dev Sharma v.

State of U.P. (2008) and Ram Phal vs. State of Haryana
(2009) 3 SCC 258 has laid down the importance of reason in
administrative orders. Further the Hon’ble Central
Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench in Batta Srinivasa
Rao vs. Union of India O.A. No. 20/697/2018 relying upon
the judgements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vishnu
Sharma (supra) and Ram Phal (supra) held that an
administrative order which is not reasoned is void in the eyes
of law.

5.9 That, the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi in

K.P Singh vs. The Commissioner, North Delhi Municipal
Corporation O.A. No. 2755/2017 held that any
administrative order which affects the right of a person must
 be reasoned. The relevant paragraph of the order is referred as
– “It is a settled legal position that even an administrative order
which affects the rights of a person must be reasoned and
speaking one. Recording of reasons is sine qua non for a valid
order/action even in the realm of administrative field.”

6. DETAILS OF THE REMEDIES EXHAUSTED:

The Applicant is challenging the orders dated 17.03.2018 and

02.11.2020 and there is other efficacious, statutory remedy
available except to approach this Hon’ble Tribunal to safeguard
his fundamental rights guaranteed under Constitution of India.

7. MATTER NOT PREVIOUSLY FILED OR PENDING WITH ANY

OTHER COURT:

NIL

8. RELIEF(S) SOUGHT:

In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances it is humbly

prayed that Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to:

8.1 To set aside final order no. TFJ/Admin/CPGRMS/2017-18

dated 17.03.2018 passed by the Chief General Manager,
Telecom Factory, Jabalpur and order dated 02.11.2020 issued
by Senior General Manager.

8.2 To direct the respondent to consider the representation made

by the applicant for her daughter dated 09.10.2020 as fresh
representation and decide the same accordingly on the merits
and guidelines of the Central Government and BSNL.

8.3 Any other relief, orders or orders, direction or directions which

this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper under the present fact
and circumstances of this case may kindly be granted in favour
of the applicant and this application be allowed with cost.

9. INTERIM ORDER, IF ANY, PRAYED FOR:

 Nil

10. LIST OF ENCLOSURES:

As per Index.

Place: Jabalpur

Date: 16.02.2021 Counsel for Applicant

VERIFICATION

I, Renu Shrivas, W/o Late Shri Arun Kumar Shrivas, aged

about 62 years, occupation - , applicant in the
present case, do hereby verify that the contents of paragraph 1 to 12
of this original application are true and correct as per our personal
knowledge.

Verified and signed on this 16 th day of February, 2021 at

Jabalpur.

Signature of Applicant