DEEPAK KUMAR G. MAKWANA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MA /320/2012 for condonation of delay is allowed. Applicant's father while serving as Postal Assistant at Kalavad Post Office, Jamnagar, expired on 3.10.2002 due to heart attack. At that time, the applicant and his younger brother and sister were minors and the widow was illiterate. Therefore immediately on attaining majority the applicant being the eldest son in the family, applied in the required pro forma for appointment on compassionate ground alongwith all required documents on 22.8.2009 vide Annexure A -1 application. Thereafter, the respondents called for certain documents and other details which were also furnished by the applicant along with the Annexure A -2 letters. On oral inquiries made, the applicant was informed from time to time that the his matter is under consideration. He received Annexure 'A' order dated 15.9.2011 stating that his application for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected. No specific reason for rejection was mentioned in Annexure 'A' order. Hence, the applicant comes up with this OA for the following reliefs: -

(2.) BY way of grounds for the present application, the applicant states that his application was not considered on the basis of then existing scheme at the time of his application and that the respondents have treated his application in a mechanical way without application of mind, in an arbitrary manner and discriminating him in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The applicant further states that after the death of his father, the terminal dues received from the department were spent for the day to day expenditures and for education fees of the children of the deceased. Though the widow is getting monthly pension of about Rs. 8000/ -, the same is inadequate for the survival of the family. The family is residing in rented house on a monthly rent of Rs. 2000/ -. Other candidates who were granted appointments are in a better financial condition than the family of the applicant.

(3.) IN the rejoinder applicant has come down heavily on the mode of selection and employment of the modified scheme by the respondents while assessing his application. He further states that at the time of his father's death the widow was neither advised or suggested to apply for appointment on compassionate ground nor was she ever offered any employment. She was informed that when her son attains majority he could apply for the employment on compassionate ground. It was the responsibility of the welfare officer of the department to visit family of the deceased employee and to guide them in a proper and correct manner. The policy adopted by the Circle Selection Committee, which met on 24.8.2011 for considering the case of the applicant is not applicable to him. According to the applicant his case for compassionate appointment should have been considered in accordance with the policy existed on the date of his application.