IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI TUESDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2008 / 24TH ASHADHA 1930 WP(C).No. 18813 of 2005(S) -------------------------- OA.758/2004 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER: ------------ K.B.SEBASTIAN, HOUSE, NO.14/515, A.R.NAIR COLONY, KUNNATHUR MEDU, PALAKKADE-678 013. BY ADV. SRI.C.S.GOPALAKRISHNAN NAIR SMT.CHANDINI G.NAIR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & CUSTOMS, CENTRAL REVENUE BUILDINGS, I.S.PRESS ROAD, COCHIN-682 018. 2. CHAIRMAN, CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI. 3. UNION OF INDIA, REP. BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110 001. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15/07/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: W.P.(C) No.18813/2005 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1: COPY OF THE ORDER DT.16.12.2004 O.A.NO.758/2004 OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL. EXT.P2: COPY OF THE SCHEME PUBLISHED IN O.M.No.14014/6/94-ESTT(D) DT.09.10.1998. EXT.P3: COPY OF THE O.A. EXT.P4: COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS. EXT.P5: COPY OF THE LIST FILED AS ANNEXURE R1 IN O.A.NO.761/2004. EXT.P6: COPY OF THE ORDER DT.31.03.2005 IN O.A.NO.761/2004. //TRUE COPY// PA TO JUDGE. K. BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI, JJ. ------------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.18813 OF 2005 ------------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of July, 2008 J U D G M E N T ~~~~~~~~~~~ Balakrishnan Nair, J. The petitioner was the applicant in O.A.No.758/2004. He was a claimant for appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme. His father, who was an employee of the Central Excise and Customs, retired from service on 22.10.1997 on medical invalidation. Therefore, as per the scheme for employment on compassionate grounds, he is also eligible to be considered for appointment. The petitioner submitted an application on 7.11.1997. The said application was rejected, along with other applications by Annexure A4 order dated 22.09.2004, produced along with the memorandum of original application in O.A.No.758/2004. The said order was challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal in the said O.A. That Original Application was dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal by Ext.P1 order. Going by Ext.P1, it would appear that the C.A.T. did not call for the records to find out whether the W.P.(C) No.18813/2005 2 petitioner's application was considered fairly. Serial No.5 in Annexure A4, Mr.M.Jayan, apart from others challenged Annexure A4 before the C.A.T. In that case, the C.A.T called for the records and certain distressing facts were disclosed. The main ground relied on in Annexure A4 was that they could not be accommodated within three years of their application for employment. But, the records showed that within three years the committee never met for considering the case of the applicants. The Original Application filed by Serial No.1 in Annexure A4 was dismissed by the C.A.T. That was challenged before this Court. This Court by judgment dated 21.6.2007 in W.P.(C) No.10432/2005 remanded the matter for fresh consideration in accordance with law. After remand, his O.A. was also allowed. That decision was again challenged by this Court by filing W.P. (C) No.17279/2008 which was dismissed in limine by this Court. 2. In view of the above facts, the petitioner submits, the rejection of his application on the ground that within three years, since appointment could not be given to him, his application cannot be considered is manifestly illegal. So, the petitioner W.P.(C) No.18813/2005 3 prays the matter may be remitted to the C.A.T. for fresh disposal as was done by this Court in W.P(C) No.10432/2005. 3. The respondents vehemently opposes the prayers in the writ petition. They submit that the decision of this Court in W.P.(C)No.10432/82008 is distinguishable on facts and therefore, there is no necessity for remanding this matter. 4. We considered the rival submissions. In Annexure A4, it is stated as follows: “The maximum time a person's name can be kept under consideration for offering compassionate appointment will be 3(Three) years. After three years, if compassionate appointment is not possible to be offered to the applicant his/her case will be finally closed and will not be considered again. The time limit of three years for compassionate appointment may be decided with reference to the date of death or retirement on medical grounds of a Government servant. However, in case of minor, the date on which the applicant attains the minimum age for appointment in Government Service should be taken for the purpose. W.P.(C) No.18813/2005 4 All concerned are requested that the pending cases of compassionate appointment may be processed accordingly.” After stating so, it is further stated that the time limit for considering petitioner's application expired on 21.10.2000 and therefore he is ineligible for consideration for appointment any further. But, Ext.P5 would show that the applications of various candidates in which the breadwinners' death took place between 1997 and 2004 were given appointment in 2004. Further, as submitted by the petitioner, the C.A.T. in O.A.No.757/2004 found that the committee appointed to decide on the claim of the applicants for employment under the dying-in-harness scheme never met in three years after the submission of the petitioner's application. So the ground taken in Annexure A4 is untenable. Therefore, we find it difficult to sustain Ext.P1 order of the C.A.T. Accordingly, it is quashed. The matter is remitted to the C.A.T. for fresh disposal of the above said Original Application, in accordance with law. The C.A.T shall call for the records and also given a chance to the writ petitioner to produce the additional pleadings, if any. The Tribunal shall endeavour to dispose of the matter, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, W.P.(C) No.18813/2005 5 within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above. (K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE) (M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE) ps