UNION OF INDIA Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Smt. Archana Singh, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ajit Kumar Singh, learned Counsel for the Union of India and Sri I.P. Srivastava, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 2. The challenge in this writ petition is to the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal whereby the claim of the Respondent No. 2 for compassionate appointment has been allowed and the orders dated 14.9.1998 and 4th July, 2002 have been set-aside.

(2.) The Petitioners contend that the Tribunal has committed an error by allowing the claim petition in view of the fact that the claim of the Respondent No. 2 had already been rejected as he himself had voluntarily refused to take up the job of a Sweeper and, therefore, the Respondent No. 2 cannot claim compassionate appointment as a matter of right. It is further submitted that several reasons have been given while passing the order dated 4th July, 2002, namely, that vacancies were not available within the 5% quota and the appointment on compassionate ground is not a matter of right and further Respondent No. 2 and his family was financially well off so as to provide enough aid and hence compassionate appointment was not permissible in view of the guide lines framed by the Government Policy. Another reason given is that the claim is on account of death of Respondent No. 2, who died on 14.9.1995 and, therefore, after seven years, the compassion did not exist so as to give rise to any claim.

(3.) Sri I.P. Srivastava submits that the answering Respondent was prepared even to perform the job of a sweeper and the appointment of the answering Respondent was cancelled vide order dated 14th November, 1998 which is bereft of any reasons. He further submits that so far as the subsequent order dated 4th July, 2002 is concerned, the same reflects non application of mind, inasmuch, it does not even refer to the earlier offer of compassionate appointment made by the Respondents and further none of the aforesaid contingencies are available for denying compassionate appointment as have been indicated therein. He further submits that the answering Respondent is even now prepared to accept the job of a sweeper and his claim survives inasmuch as he had approached the authority well within time.