KAMAL PRAKASH SAHU Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ADMIT. As only a short question is involved, and as Mr. H. N. Tilhari, learned counsel for Central Government has placed before us the relevant record, we dispense with the requirement of filing a counter affidavit and proceed to dispose of this petition finally. The petitioner is a son of the Late Kanhaiya Lal who died on 16-11-81 while he was in service as Daftari (Class IV) in All India Radio, Lucknow.

(2.) HE made an application for being considered for appointment as a dependant of a government servant dying in harness. Relevant Circular O. M. No. 14014/1/77-Estt. (D) dated 25-11-78 from the Ministry of Home Affairs, department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, to all heads of All india Radio Stations and Offices, besides other departments, lays down that ministries and departments are competent to appoint in relaxation of the normal procedure of recruitment the son/daughter/near relation of a Government servant who dies in harness leaving his family in immediate need of assistance, in the event of there being no other earning member in the family, to a Group 'c' or Group 'd' post, after the proposal for such appointment has been approved by the Joint Secretary In charge of the administration Or secretary in the Ministry or department concerned. The petitioner in his application for appointment to a Group 'd' post mentioned that his father had left the petitioner as his only son and the petitioner's mother as widow, apart from four married daughters. It was further mentioned in the application, which has been produced before us by learned standing counsel, that none of the two was employed.

(3.) THAT even administrative orders are justiciable has not been disputed, vide Amarjit Singh v. State of Punjab (1975) 3 S. CC. 503. Learned Standing Counsel has however, pointed out that petitioner's application was rejected on the ground, as mentioned in Annexure-5 (letter dated 9-2-83), that the resources of the family did not justify a "compassionate appointment". It has been pointed out by the learned Standing Counsel that the petitioner's own application showed that a family pension of Rs. 125/- per month had been sanctioned to the petitioner and his mother, apart from release of Gratuity and General provident Fund and Life Insurance Policy and cash equivalent to leave salary.