T MOHANDOSS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved against the orders of the central Administrative Tribunal dated 30. 01. 2006 in O. A. No. 28 of 2006 and 03. 01. 2007 in R. A. No. 18 of 2006. By the impugned orders, the Tribunal rejected the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment as a daily rated/casual employee. THE petitioner's father one Mr. T. Thirumal was employed as NMR for nearly twelve years in the Public Works Department. He died on 19. 10. 2004 due to ill health. After the death of his father, the petitioner is stated to have made an application dated 17. 11. 2004 claiming employment on compassionate ground. THEre was also a rival claim by one Tmt. Saroja, who claimed herself to be the second wife of late T. Thirumal.

(2.) BE that as it may, since the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment was not considered by the first respondent, the petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing O. A. No. 28 of 2006 seeking a direction to consider his application dated 17. 11. 2004 for compassionate appointment in any suitable post in Public Works Department. The Tribunal by its order dated 30. 01. 2006, dismissed the petitioner's Original Application on the ground that his father was not in regular Government service. The petitioner preferred a Review Application in R. A. No. 18 of 2006. In the Review application, the petitioner relied upon a memorandum of the first respondent dated 26. 03. 1993. However, the Tribunal by referring to the scheme for compassionate appointment as per O. M. No. 14014/6/94 Estt dated 09. 10. 1998, held that the scheme for compassionate appointment is not applicable to daily rated employees. We fully concur with the said conclusion of the Tribunal.