CHANDERJIT YADAV Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition praying inter alia for directions in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 16th September, 2005 passed by the respondent No. 2, rejecting the request of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the facts of the case are that the father of the petitioner was working as a Line Operator in the Haryana Circle of respondent no. 2. As he was suffering from cancer since the year 2001, he expired on 10th october, 2003 leaving behind his wife and five children out of which the petitioner is at the second place. It is stated that on 5th December, 2003, the petitioner made an application for being considering for appointment on compassionate grounds. Though the request of the petitioner was made to the cgmt,haryana Circle, Ambala, it is submitted that the application of the petitioner was transferred to the Headquarters of respondent No. 2 after a period of one year. The Chief Managing Director of respondent No. 2 directed the sonepat Circle of Haryana Circle to produce a report about the financial condition of the petitioner which was prepared by the JTO and forwarded vide letter dated 22nd November, 2004 After the same was considered, vide order dated 10th August, 2005, the High Powered Committee of respondent No. 2 rejected the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate basis by holding that the financial position of the family was sound considering the assets, liabilities and other relevant factors relating to the case of the petitioner. The aforesaid decision of the High Powered Committee was communicated to the petitioner under cover of letter dated 16th September, 2005 issued by the CGMT, Haryana Circle, Ambala. Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.

(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner submits that while passing the impugned order, respondent No. 2 did not appreciate the letter dated 22nd november, 2004 issued by the JTO giving the description about the family members of the petitioner in the correct perspective. He submits that the petitioner has three younger brothers who are dependent upon him and merely because he has a residential premises at a backward place cannot be a consideration for rejecting his application for appointment on compassionate grounds.