J USHA NANDHINI Vs. UNION OF INDIA; CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL, TAMIL NADU CIRCLE; SUPERINTENDENT, RAILWAY MAIL SERVICES; REGISTRAR, CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a writ of certiorarified mandamus, calling for the records from the file of the fourth respondent relating to the order passed in O.A.No.975 of 2013, dated 25.8.2014 and quash the same; consequently direct the respondents 1 to 3 to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds.

(2.) The petitioner herein, as applicant, has filed O.A.No.975 of 2013, on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, wherein, it is averred that the father of the applicant has passed away on 16.5.2005, leaving behind him, his wife and three daughters, including the applicant. All the daughters are unmarried, at the time of demise of the father of the applicant. The mother of the applicant has submitted a representation to respondents 1 to 3 to consider appointment to one of her daughters and she has been told that approved list of candidates for appointment on compassionate grounds is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and therefore, her request could not be considered. From 2001 to 2010, respondents 1 to 3 have not taken any steps to make appointment on compassionate grounds to the deserving candidates. In the year 2005 itself, the family of the applicant has not been given any appointment on compassionate ground, even though the applicant and others are in indigent circumstances. The respondents 1 to 3 have wantonly allowed accumulation of cases. On 20.1.2010, a new scheme has been introduced for considering appointment. The applicant is the second daughter of the deceased and she is unmarried. Under the said circumstances, the present application has been filed for getting the relief sought therein.

(3.) In the counter filed on the side of respondents 1 to 3, it is averred that as per instructions in Postal Directorate's letter dated 20.1.2010, the case of the applicant has been considered on the basis of relative merit points and she scored 59 points. It is false to allege that the family of the applicant is in indigent circumstance. After the demise of the father of the applicant, all benefits have been given. On 1.2.2012, a representation has been received from one of the sisters of the applicant and the same has been rejected. After a lapse of seven years from the demise of the father of the applicant, the applicant has sent a representation. It is false to say that a case is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to appointment on compassionate grounds. There is no merit in the application and the same deserves to be dismissed.