PRAVINKUMAR NARANBHAI SOLANKI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard Mr Amrish K Pandya, learned counsel for the petitioner. This petition has been filed challenging the order dated 7.12.2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad in O.A. No.100/2010 by which the order passed by the respondents that the petitioner was not entitled to any compassionate appointment has been affirmed.

(2.) FROM the records we find that the father of the petitioner who was an employee of Postal Department died on 13.4.2005 while in service. The applicant applied for compassionate appointment on 22.11.2005. After the death of his father, his family was receiving a monthly pension of Rs. 3,608/- (basic) and terminal benefits amounting to Rs.3,51,382/-. The claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was reconsidered twice by the respondent along with other candidates on 9.2.2007 and on 24.12.2008. But the petitioner could not be appointed as vacancies were less and more deserving candidates other than the petitioner were available for compassionate appointment. The other argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner has also been dealt with by the Tribunal that his claim has not been considered for Group 'D' (class IV) post. The finding of the Tribunal was that since the petitioner was only eligible for class IV post, his claim had been considered for Group 'D' post.