1
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
CONTEMPT CASE No.1017 OF 2021
O R D E R:
This Contempt Case has been filed seeking to punish
the respondents for violation of the orders, dated
10.02.2021 passed in W.P.No.18260 of 2012.
2) The petitioner filed W.P.No.18260 of 2012 praying
to declare the action of the Respondents in not giving a
suitable post or job to the petitioner in their organization
under compassionate grounds due to the death of his father
in 2006, besides several representations being made by
petitioner as illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and for
consequential direction.
3) This Court, by order, dated 10.02.2021, directed
the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner to
appoint him in any suitable post on compassionate grounds
in the Respondents organization, within a period of six
weeks from the date of receipt of copy of the order.
4) Complaining the action of the Respondents in not
implementing the orders of this Court, the petitioner filed
this Contempt Case.
2
5) The 2nd Respondent filed his counter-affidavit.
6) Heard the respective counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner and respondents. Perused the entire
material available on record.
7) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
after receipt of the orders of the Court, the petitioner went
to the 2nd Respondent office and gave a representation on
04.03.2021 along with copy of the order of this Hon'ble
Court. Thereafter, the authorities called him for interview
vide a letter, dated 01.04.2021 and he attended interview on
15.04.2021. Later, he received a letter from the 2nd
Respondent informing that they forwarded his application
after obtaining comprehensive report of the Welfare Officer
to the 3rd Respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner received a
final order of the 3rd Respondent rejecting his claim. Though
the 3rd Respondent is not a party to the writ petition, he
passed rejection order deliberately not considering his
request.
8) Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits
that the petitioner came to know that there are several
suitable posts to accommodate to him. But, the respondents
did not choose to implement the orders of this Court and 3
having fully, deliberately, wantonly violated the orders of the
Court, and as such, they are liable for punishment under the
provisions of Contempt of Court Act, 1971.
9) In the counter-affidavit, the 2nd Respondent
submitted that the 3rd Respondent in consideration of all the
material facts and circumstances as well as keeping in mind
the EPFO Head Office guiding principles communicated vide
circular, dated 23.07.2020 rejected the application received
from the petitioner for consideration of "appointment under
compassionate grounds" as there is no vacancy under
compassionate appointment quota in the cadre of MTS and
also his case could not be considered for appointment in the
cadre of SSA as he is not having the required educational
qualifications prescribed for the said cadre. The competent
authority issued a speaking order, dated 07.06.2021.
10) The 2nd Respondent further submitted that the
deceased employee has another son by name B. Tharun
Nath, born through the 2nd wife, apart from the petitioner
herein, who is the son of 1st wife. The son of the 2nd wife
had filed W.P.No.7699 of 2021 wherein this Hon'ble Court by
order, dated 06.04.2021 has directed to deal with the
representations, dated 30.12.2020 and 25.01.2021
submitted by his mother expeditiously and accordingly, the 4
Respondent Authority of such Writ Petition has initiated
suitable action as per the prescribed procedure.
11) The 2nd Respondent further submitted that in
consideration of order, dated 10.02.2021 passed by this
Hon'ble Court in W.P.No.18260 of 2012, the Zonal Screening
Committee met on 05.03.2021 wherein it was observed by
the Zonal Screening Committee that the case is older than 5
years and as per the guidelines issued by Head Office vide
Circular dated 23.07.2020 at Sl.No.6(d)(III) the Zonal
Screening Committee had recommended to refer the case
for approval of CPFC.
12) As per the EPFO Head office guidelines,
compassionate appointment is considered in the cadre of
Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS) and Social security Assistant (SSA)
only. Head Office, vide circular dated 23.07.2020, had
informed that the total sanctioned posts in MTS as on
31.12.2019 is less than MTS in-position strength in EPFO.
Therefore, EPFO Head office had issued direction that
"though a regional office or a state may have vacancy in
MTS cadre but as an organizational perspective, in-position
strength is over-saturated and, hence, no appointment in
the cadre of MTS shall be considered by any cadre
controlling authority till further direction from Head Office 5
barring the proposals already approved by the Head Office".
The petitioner herein is possessed Secondary School
Certificate (X class) and as per the recruitment rules of
Social Security Assistant in EPFO notified vide Gazette dated
02.02.02021, the minimum educational qualification is
required for candidates for direct recruitment is Bachelor's
Degree from a recognized university. As such, the competent
authority was thus constrained to reject the candidature of
the petitioner for compassionate appointment in any post of
EPFO.
13) Learned counsel for the 2nd Respondent relied on
a decision in Himachal Road Transport Corporation vs.
Dinesh Kumar1 and Hindustan Aeronautics Limited vs. 2 Smt. A. Radhika Thirumalai wherein the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India held that "appointment on
compassionate grounds can be made only if a vacancy is
available for that purpose" which has also been reiterated by
DoPT, Government of India clarifying that the vacancy as per
the prescribed yardstick as on the date of consideration of
the compassionate appointment by the competent authority
should be reckoned.
1 JT 1996 (5) SC, 319 2 JT 1996 (9) SC 197 6
14) Learned counsel for the 2nd Respondent submits
that in the instant case, one Sri B. Tharun Nath, who is son
of deceased employee from his second wife had also filed
W.P.No.7699 of 2021 wherein the Hon'ble High Court passed
orders, dated 06.04.2021 to consider his case. On the other
hand, the petitioner herein is the son of deceased from his
first wife, who filed W.P.No.18260 of 2012 wherein the
Hon'ble High Court passed orders to consider his
appointment.
15) Learned counsel for the 2nd Respondent relied on
the judgment in Life Insurance Corporation of India vs.
Mrs Asha Ramachandra Ambedkar and others3 wherein
the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India held that "The High
Courts and Administrative Tribunals cannot give direction for
appointmentof a person on compassionate grounds, but, can
merely direct consideration of the claim for such an
appointment.
16) Therefore, the learned counsel for the 2nd
Respondent submitted that this office has considered the
claim of the petitioner. As no vacancy is available in the
post suitable to the petitioner for compassionate
appointment, the competent authority was constrained to
reject the candidature of the petitioner duly followed the 3 JT 1994(2) SC 183 7
prescribed EPFO guidelines. As such, he prayed to dismiss
the contempt case.
17) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsels appearing for the Respondents and perused
the record.
18) This Contempt Case is filed on 26.06.2021
complaining willful disobedience in implementing the order
by the Respondents. It appears the Respondents issued
speaking order vide order, dated 07.06.2021 rejecting the
claim of the petitioner stating that there is no vacancy under
compassionate appointment quota in the cadre of MTS and
also his case could not be considered for appointment in the
cadre of SSA as he is not having the required educational
qualifications prescribed for the said cadre.
19) Having careful perusal of the entire record, in our
opinion, in compliance of the order of the Court, the
Respondents has examined the claim of the petitioner and
finally issued rejection order on 07.06.2021. If there is any
illegality against the order, dated 07.06.2021 passed by the
Respondents rejecting the claim of the petitioner, the
petitioner can challenge the same by filing appropriate
petition.
8
20) So far as the present contempt case is concerned,
in our considered view, there is no willful disobedience on
the part of the Respondents in implementing the order
passed by this Court on 10.02.2021.
21) Accordingly, this contempt case is closed.
22) There shall be no order as to costs.
As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any,
shall stand closed.
__________________________ JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND Dt.04.05.2022 PGR 9
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE BATTU DEVANAND
C.C.No.1017 OF 2021
Dt:04.05.2022
PGR
