K G SUNIL KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Has the Central Administrative Tribunal erred in rejecting the petitioner's claim for the grant of compassionate appointment This is the short question that arises for consideration in this case. A few facts as relevant for the decision of this case may be noticed.

(2.) The petitioner's father was working as an Assistant Binder with the Government of India Press. Unfortunately, he passed away on Tune 14, 1998. On his death, the petitioner applied for the grant of appointment on compassionate basis. The claim was duly considered by the competent authority. However, vide order dated November 1, 2000, the request was declined. Copy of this order has been produced as Ext. P5. Aggrieved by this order, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal. The petition having been dismissed, he has approached this Court through the present petition.

(3.) Mr. Sudhish, learned counsel for the petitioner, contends that the mere grant of terminal benefits cannot be a ground for the denial of an appointment on compassionate basis. Still further, the counsel submits that the petitioner had a liability of Rs. 30,000/-. Thus, the decision as taken by the competent authority and affirmed by the Administrative Tribunal cannot be sustained. Learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Canara Bank & Others v. Priya Jayarajan, 2001 (1) KLJ 411 . He has also referred to the judgment of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Balbir Kaur & Another v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Others, ( 2000 (6) SCC 493 ). The claim as made by the petitioner has been controverted by Mr. Gopinath, learned counsel for the respondents.