* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment delivered on: May 28, 2015
+ W.P. (C) 1877/2015
FARYAZ @ FAYAZ .... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Saurabh Dev Karan Singh and
Mr. Sandeep Phogat, Advocates
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Jagjit Singh and Mr. N.
Prashant Kumar Nair, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE I.S. MEHTA
JUDGMENT
% KAILASH GAMBHIR, J.
1. By this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 11 th November, 2014 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi whereby the Tribunal dismissed the O.A. being No. 4209/2010 preferred by the petitioner. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondents to grant him appointment on any suitable basis in the Railways as per the announcement made by the then Railway Minister.
2. To appreciate the controversy at hand, it would be necessary to give a brief gist of the facts.
3. The petitioner is the son of Late Smt. Shakina wife of Mohd. W.P (C) No. 1877/2015 Page 1 of 15 Yusuf. This lady Smt. Shakina Begum was travelling as a passenger in Delhi-Attari Express (link train of Samjhauta Express), Train No. 4001 on 18th February, 2007, and when the train had reached near Panipat, there was a bomb blast in the train owing to terrorist attacks, where sixty- eight people were killed in the ensuing fire and many more were injured.
4. On the next date of the incident, i.e. on 19 th February, 2007, the then Railway Minister announced compensation amount of Rs. 10 lakhs for the next-of-kin of each of the deceased and Rs. 50,000 for those injured. The Minister also announced that the Ministry of Railways would give jobs in the Railway Department to one family member of each Indian killed in the blast.
5. Fulfilling one of the commitments, compensation amount of Rs. 10 lakhs was paid by the Railways to the family members of the deceased victim Smt. Shakina but insofar as the second part of the announcement was concerned regarding providing employment to one family member of the deceased victim, it remained unfulfilled insofar as the facts of this case are concerned.
6. The petitioner had submitted various representations to the G.M., Northern Railway for employment in the Railway Department as per the W.P (C) No. 1877/2015 Page 2 of 15 announcement of the Railway Minister and finding no results therein, the petitioner had filed O.A. being No. 4209/2010 before the learned Tribunal seeking a direction for his appointment on a suitable post in the Railways. This O.A. filed by the petitioner was disposed of by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 14th December, 2010 with a direction to the respondents to consider the representation of the petitioner and decide the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
7. The said order dated 14th December, 2010 passed by the learned Tribunal was not complied with by the respondents and this led the petitioner to file a contempt petition being No. 713/2011 and vide order dated 9th January, 2012, the said contempt petition was disposed of by the learned Tribunal and a compliance report was filed by the respondents, in which the stand taken by the respondents was that the competent authority, i.e. the Railway Board has decided that the applicant may be considered for engagement as a "Fresh Face Substitute" in the Pay Band- 1 with grade pay of Rs. 1800/- under the General Manager's discretionary powers subject to fulfilment of extant instructions.
8. Despite the said compliance report filed by the respondents, the W.P (C) No. 1877/2015 Page 3 of 15 petitioner was not granted employment in the Railways and vide letter dated 6th July, 2012, the Railways finally conveyed to the petitioner that since in his case, the criteria of 'dependency' is not adequately established, hence, his is not a fit case for offering substitute appointment. The said decision dated 6th July, 2012 passed by the competent authority i.e. General Manager (P), Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi was challenged by the petitioner in a fresh OA being OA No. 2634/2013 before the learned Tribunal and the learned Tribunal finding itself in agreement with the impugned decision of the respondent dated 6 th July, 2012 dismissed OA No. 2634/2013 preferred by him.
9. Feeling aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal dated 11 th November, 2014 in OA No. 2634/2013, the petitioner has now filed the present writ petition before this Court.
10. Assailing the legality and correctness of the order passed by the learned Tribunal, counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the fact that the case of the petitioner was not a case for granting employment on compassionate ground to the ward of a railway employee but was a case where he sought employment based on the announcement made by the then Railway Minister for giving W.P (C) No. 1877/2015 Page 4 of 15 employment to one of the family members of the victim who died in the Samjhauta Train Bombings.
11. The counsel for the petitioner further argued that in fact, the Railway Board vide its order dated 28th December, 2011 had approved the appointment of the petitioner but the same was rejected by the General Manager (P), Northern Railway in a most whimsical and arbitrary manner vide order dated 6th July, 2012. Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner had fulfilled all the terms and conditions seeking employment to Fresh Face Substitute in the Pay Band- 1 with grade pay of Rs. 1800/- in terms of the announcement made by the Railway Minster but nevertheless the same was denied to him by wrongly considering his case on the parameters of compassionate appointments given to a ward of a railway employee.
12. Based on these submissions, counsel for the petitioner strongly urged for setting aside the impugned order dated 11th November, 2014 passed by the learned Tribunal and to give a direction to the respondents to grant employment to the petitioner in terms of the announcement made by the then Railway Minister.
13. Rebutting the said submissions made by the counsel for the W.P (C) No. 1877/2015 Page 5 of 15 petitioner, Mr. Jagjit Singh, Standing Counsel for the respondents submitted that the case of the petitioner for appointment was considered pursuant to the announcement made by the then Railway Minister announcing compensation amount of Rs.10 lacs for the victims of Samjhauta Train Bombings and to give employment to one of the family members of the blast victims. Counsel also submitted that pursuant to the said announcement, the case of the petitioner was considered and he was not found entitled to seek appointment in Group 'D' post with the respondents. Counsel also submitted that the petitioner was not financially dependent on the victim as he was having his own family comprising of his wife and four children and he was attending to their needs through his own financial resources and therefore he was not considered for appointment. Counsel also submitted that the ex-gratia amount of Rs.10 lacs was paid to the family members of the deceased victim and after having paid the said amount it was no more obligatory on the part of the respondents to have also given an employment to the family members of the deceased. Counsel for the respondents also produced the original records where the case of the petitioner has been dealt with.
W.P (C) No. 1877/2015 Page 6 of 15
14. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by them.
15. The short question and surely an important one that arises in the present case is what is the sanctity of the on the spot announcements made by the Ministers and the others holding high positions whenever such kind of incidents, blasts and mishaps take place.
16. It is an undisputed fact that the mother of the petitioner Late Smt. Shakina Begum was travelling as a passenger in Delhi-Attari Express (link train of Samjhauta Express), Train No. 4001 on 18th February, 2007, and when the train had reached near Panipat, there was a bomb blast in the train owing to terrorist attacks, where sixty-eight people were killed in the resultant fire and many more were injured. The then Railway Minister on the following day i.e. 19th February, 2007 so as to give succour to the family members of the deceased and to the injured made an announcement for ex gratia payment of Rs. 10 lakhs to the family members of the deceased and a compensation of Rs. 50,000/- to the injured. Another important announcement made by the then Railway Minister was to give employment in the Railway Department to one of W.P (C) No. 1877/2015 Page 7 of 15 the family members of each Indian killed in the blast.
17. The said amount of Rs. 10 lakhs as compensation was paid to the family members of the deceased Smt. Shakina Begum but till date, in the case of the petitioner, the second announcement made by the Railway Minister has not yet been fulfilled. It is almost more than eight years now, still the petitioner has been struggling to seek enforcement of the second announcement made by the then Railway Minister. Initially, the petitioner made many representations but the same did not yield any result, then he approached the learned Tribunal to seek a direction to the respondents in this regard by filing OA No. 4209/2010. The said OA was disposed of by the learned Tribunal by giving a direction to the respondents to decide the representation filed by the petitioner by passing a speaking and reasoned order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the Tribunal's order.
18. On the failure of the respondents to take any decision within the aforesaid period of three months, the petitioner had filed a Contempt Petition being No. 713/2011 and after issuing notice in the contempt petition, the respondents filed the compliance report. Based on the compliance report, the learned Tribunal had disposed of the aforesaid W.P (C) No. 1877/2015 Page 8 of 15 contempt petition on 9th January, 2012 stating as follows:-
"1. This contempt petition has been filed against the alleged violation of the order dated 14.12.2010. Notice of the contempt petition was given to the respondents. Pursuant thereto, the respondents have filed compliance report. Along with the compliance report, the respondents have also annexed a copy of the order dated 28.12.2010. In para 4 of the compliance report, it has been stated that the competent authority i.e. the Railway Board has decided that the applicant may be considered for engagement as fresh face Substitute in the Pay Band-1 with grade pay of Rs. 1800/- under the General Manager's discretionary powers subject to fulfilment of extant instructions and following stipulations.
2. In view of what has been stated above, the present contempt petition does not survive, which is accordingly disposed of. Notices are hereby discharged."
19. The said direction given by the learned Tribunal based on the compliance report filed by the respondents raised a ray of hope for the petitioner that the respondents will give him employment. But to his utter shock and dismay, his case was rejected by an order dated 6th July, 2012 by the General Manager (P), Northern Railway, Baroda House, New Delhi on the ground that his case was not a fit case to be considered for offering compassionate appointment i.e. 'Fresh Face Substitute' in the Pay Band-1 with grade pay of Rs. 1800/- as in his case, the criteria of 'dependency' was not adequately established. The said decision taken by the respondents to deny appointment to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner does not fulfil the criteria of dependency, is totally indecipherable as the respondents have considered the case of the petitioner under the guidelines and instructions applicable for considering the case of the ward of a railway employee for appointment on compassionate grounds. This petitioner is not seeking employment on W.P (C) No. 1877/2015 Page 9 of 15 compassionate ground as a ward of a railway employee. The petitioner is the son of a victim, who died in the Samjhauta Express Train Bombings on the fateful day i.e. 18th February, 2007. The petitioner is seeking employment on the basis of the announcement made by the then Railway Minister of providing employment to one of the family members of each Indian who was killed in the blast.
20. It is an admitted case that there are no specific rules or guidelines which govern such cases for providing employment. What is sanctity of such spot announcements made by the Ministers and other high functionaries when such kind of human tragedy takes place for no fault of the citizens? In our view, when such announcements are made by the Government or by any highest authority competent to make such announcements, then they cannot be empty or hollow announcements made just for momentary satisfaction of the public, particularly the victims of such mishaps. Therefore, it is totally unfathomable that such on the spot announcements made by the Ministers or Chief Ministers ultimately hold no good and are mere hollow promises which are supposedly not meant to be implemented. Very conveniently, the respondents could have even retracted from paying the compensation as W.P (C) No. 1877/2015 Page 10 of 15 announced by the Railway Minister, if they can do so apropos the second announcement. The petitioner who was of the age of 30 years in the year 2007 is now 38 years of age and he has lost more than eight years running around in the corridors of law, who is then responsible and accountable for all his sufferings?
21. It has come on record that the Railway Board had taken a decision to consider the case of the petitioner for engagement as 'Fresh Face Substitute' in the Pay Band-1 with grade pay of Rs. 1800/- under the General Manager's discretionary powers but nevertheless he was denied appointment on the most untenable ground that is of treating his case as that of a ward of a railway employee seeking appointment on compassionate ground.
22. On perusal of the record produced by the respondents, we find that the reasons for denying appointment to the petitioner was that he was a married man having four children, and therefore, he was not dependent on his mother Smt. Shakina and hence, his case is not a fit case for offering substitute appointment.
23. The announcement made by the then Railway Minister nowhere suggested that they would give employment to a dependent member of W.P (C) No. 1877/2015 Page 11 of 15 the victim satisfying the norms laid down for compassionate appointment but the announcement merely stated that the employment will be given to one of the family members of each Indian killed in the blast. We do not know as to how this theory of dependency has been introduced by the respondents. Moreover, no well place person would come forward to seek an appointment in Group 'D' post until and unless he is compelled by the circumstances.
24. A catastrophic event more often than not, is unforeseen and one cannot always be prepared to handle the consequences that ensue. The public functionaries holding high offices in order to provide solace and succour to those affected by such fateful events, make public announcements promising monetary compensation and employment to the family members of the deceased to tide over the difficult time. These promises are the silver lining for these family members and cannot remain unfulfilled, as otherwise people will lose faith in the authorities. The public office holders cannot use these promises in times of distress as a tool for salvaging public outcry and political turmoil. It no doubt goes to the credit of the public functionaries that as representatives of the government as a welfare State, they make these announcements on the W.P (C) No. 1877/2015 Page 12 of 15 spot which gives a ray of hope to the families affected, but at the same time, they being responsible for what assurances they give should be cautious about its feasibility and foresee any circumstances that would be an impediment to its potential practical implementation. It is a caveat for all those who occupy offices which are in a position to mitigate the pain and suffering of the family of the victims by way of promises, to be responsible and mindful while making them as they are not only bound by them morally, ethically but above all legally.
25. The Indian Railways are the lifeline of our nation as they touch the lives of millions of people every day. Being the largest railway network in the world, it has and still continues to play a pivotal role in our vibrant economy. Unfortunate instances of train bombings and accidents are very distressing for those who lose their loved ones to such mishaps and such conduct of the people placed high up on the political ladder, as in the case at hand, who turn their back on such promises is agonizing and appalling, adding insult to injury. Such a somersault on promises gives an impression to the already distraught people that those were mere empty promises made at the spur of the moment and were never meant to be kept. In this regard, it is for the respondents to frame rules to meet such W.P (C) No. 1877/2015 Page 13 of 15 situations. Present is one such case where terrorist bombings on Delhi- Attari Express (link train of Samjhauta Express) killed the petitioner's mother and as promised by the respondents to give a job in the Railway Department to one family member of each Indian killed in the blast, was not adhered to, such should not be the conduct of a Govt. department like the Railways. High Public functionaries should not make hollow promises rather they should effectively monitor and ensure implementation of the announcements made by them and handle all such sensitive situations without any bias. As existing on this date, we find no reason to deny the relief to the petitioner who was given an assurance by none else than the highest functionary i.e. the Railway Minister and to deny the said right to him would be a great injustice and also against our ethics and moralities.
26. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order dated 11 th November, 2014 passed by the Tribunal in OA No. 2634/2013.
27. It is hereby directed that the respondents shall provide employment to the petitioner as Fresh Face Substitute in the Pay Band-1 with grade pay of Rs. 1800/- within a period of one month from today. We also impose a cost of Rs. 1, 00,000/- on the respondents to be paid to the W.P (C) No. 1877/2015 Page 14 of 15 petitioner for causing such an enormous delay in providing employment to him, within a period of four weeks from today.
28. The proof of deposit of cost shall be filed by the respondents in compliance of this order, with the Registrar General of this Court and for this purpose only, the matter shall be listed before the Registrar General on 08.09.15 for compliance of this order.
29. It is ordered accordingly.
(KAILASH GAMBHIR) JUDGE (I.S.MEHTA) JUDGE May 28, 2015 sd W.P (C) No. 1877/2015 Page 15 of 15