DEEPAK KUMAR Vs. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No. 28511/2016 (Exemption)

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal has failed to take into consideration the fact that the petitioner has to support his step mother and her two children. Counsel also submits that the Tribunal has failed to consider the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in Canara Bank & Another v. M. Mahesh Kumar, 2015 7 SCC 412 that grant of family pension cannot be one of the ground to reject the appointment of the kin of a deceased employee on compassionate grounds. Reliance is also placed on Balbir Kaur & Anr. v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors., 2000 6 SCC 493, where the Supreme Court has taken into consideration that the ground of family benefit scheme cannot in any way be equated with the benefit of compassionate appointment. Counsel also submits that the Tribunal has mis-directed itself and returned the finding that the petitioner was having a property valuing Rs.24 lacs and an annual income of Rs.13,000/-. Counsel further submits that the share of the petitioner in the property valuing Rs. 24 lacs would only come to Rs. 4.80 Lacs and thus, it cannot be a ground to reject his application. Counsel also submits that the Tribunal has failed to consider the case of the petitioner visa-vis 147 other candidates who have been appointed on compassionate grounds and no reasons have been given in this regard.

(3.) We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The judgments sought to be relied upon by the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the present case as the Tribunal has not rejected the case of the petitioner either on the ground that the petitioner is receiving family pension or he is entitled to the benefit of family pension scheme. In this case, the Tribunal has rejected the OA after perusing the minutes of the meeting of Police Establishment Board. We deem it appropriate to reproduce Para 8 of the order of the Tribunal:-