ANAND KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the Court. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

(2.) WE have carefully perused the impugned order of the Tribunal and find no illegality in the same. The Tribunal has held that the petitioner's financial condition is not bad and hence it is not a fit case for granting compassionate appointment. The Tribunal has referred to the family pension etc. which the petitioner's family is getting as well as the rent from houses,as well as the plots in several towns. It is settled law that compassionate appointment may be granted only when the financial condition of the family is bad, vide Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SC 138, but in this case the finding of fact is that it is not bad. Moreover the petitioner's father died on 30 -5 -1994 i.e., almost 8 years ago and hence this is not a fit case for passing any mandamus under Article 226 of the Constitution since the purpose of giving compassionate appointment is that there is an immediate financial crisis in the family, vide Haryana State Electricity Board v. Naresh, 1996(2) LBESR 206 (SC) ; JT 1996 (2) SC 542. The writ petition is hence dismissed. Petition dismissed.