UNION OF INDIA; CHIEF ENGINEER (NAVY) SOUTHERN COMMAND; COMMANDER WORK ENGINEER (NAVY) Vs. GARRISON ENGINEER(MAINT); M MANIKANDAN; CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Review by the Union of India and others is directed against the order and direction issued in W.P.No.14010 of 2013 dated 29.08.2013.

(2.) The review petitioners were the respondents 1 to 4 in the said writ petition. The writ petition was filed by the first respondent herein for issuance of writ of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order passed by the first petitioner herein dated 28.05.2013 and to direct the petitioners herein to appoint the first respondent as a Clerk/Mazdoor/Peon/Chowkidar on compassionate ground on the basis of his application dated 13.01.2003 submitted by the father of the first respondent as against the vacancies that arose from the year 2003 onwards. It is to be pointed out that the prayer in the writ petition was an amended prayer. At the first instance, the first respondent-writ petitioner sought for issuance of a writ of mandamus to issue a positive direction to the petitioners herein to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds. Since during the pendency of the writ petition, an order was passed on 28.05.2013 rejecting the request, the first respondent-writ petitioner sought for amendment of the prayer, which was permitted by the Division Bench by order dated 20.08.2013. Before we examine the ground on which the petitioners seek to review the order and direction issued by the Division Bench in the writ petition certain facts would be essential.

(3.) The first respondent filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.666 of 2012 challenging the order dated 5.6.2009 by which the first respondent's application for compassionate appointment was not considered on the ground that it was submitted beyond a period of three years from the date of demise of his mother,who was employed in the petitioner-Department. The Tribunal disposed of the application on 11.4.2013 by recording the submission made by the Department that the respondent's name has been included for consideration by the Board and based on the said fact, the Department was directed to consider the case of the first respondent on compassionate grounds along with others, who were waiting for appointment as and when the vacancy arises.The respondent-writ petitioner not satisfied with the direction and he having approached the Tribunal for redressal of his grievance within a short time and as the first respondent had earlier filed two original applications in OA Nos.520 of 2011 and O.A.No.1079 of 2009 and inspite of the directions issued by the Tribunal in those OAs have not worked out in favour of the first respondent, he approached this Court by filing W.P.No.14010 of 2013 for issuance of a positive direction to consider and appoint him on compassionate grounds.This as stated earlier the prayer in the writ petition stood amended since the first respondent's request for compassionate appointment came to be rejected by order dated 28.05.2013.Before the Division Bench the petitioner-Department resisted the claim made by the first respondent by referring to the reasons assigned in the order dated 28.05.2013. which is an order rejecting the request for compassionate appointment. In the said order, the reason assigned for rejecting the writ petitioner's request for compassionate appointment was on the ground that the marks secured by the respondent was less and he could not make it in the merit for appointment on compassionate ground compared to other candidates for the period from 01.04.2010 to 31.03.2011. Further it was stated that the first respondent's application for compassionate appointment was beyond the time prescribed in the office memorandum dated 5.5.2003 and the persons name can be kept for consideration for offering compassionate appointment only for three years subject to the condition that the prescribed committee has reviewed and certified the penurious condition of the applicant at the end of first and second year and after three years if compassionate appointment is not possible to be offered, the case may be finally closed and will not be considered again.