VIRENDRA BAHADUR SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, petitioner assails the order of Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jabalpur Branch, dated October 30, 2000, passed in O. A. No. 892/2000.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, petitioner is the son of late Shri V. B. Singh, an employee of Department of Telecommunications, Jabalpur. After having reached almost the fag end of service, he died on 17-2-1990. He left behind 6 family members : widow, 3 daughters and 2 sons. Sequel to the death of late Shri V. B. Singh, the family got Rs. 1,45,316. 00 towards G. P. F. , D. C. R. G. , C. G. E. G. I. S. and leave encashment. Besides terminal benefits, family pension of Rs. 1,187. 00 p. m. is released in favour of the family. Case of the petitioner was rejected on 22-5-1992. Grievance of the petitioner is that respondents did not advance cogent reasons for this rejection, although all particulars sought by the respondents were furnished. Respondents submit that the deceased died after rendering nearly 36 years' service. The family received not only monthly pension of Rs. 1,187. 00, but also terminal benefit of Rs. 1,45,316. 00. Further statement is that compassionate appointment is provided to 5% general vacancy candidates and it can be offered to really deserving candidates. The matter of petitioner was referred to Verification Committee which visited the residence of late Shri V. B. Singh. Report submitted by the Committee to the High Power Committee is that the family owns and resides in a Pakka House of 5 rooms, built on plot area of 60' x 40'; widow of the deceased receives rent of Rs. 300. 00 per month by letting out some portion of the house; she is getting monthly pension of Rs. 1,187. 00 and has already received Rs. 1,45,316. 00 by way of terminal benefits against the items mentioned hereinabove. The High Power Committee considered the matter on 27-5-1991 and found that it was not a suitable case for compassionate appointment. Accordingly, the claim was rejected and petitioner informed.

(3.) COMPASSIONATE appointment is offered to those families whose bread earner's untimely demise leaves the family in an indigent condition. This is not so in the present case. Petitioner relies on Haryana State Electricity Board v. Naresh Tanwar and Anr. [ (1996) 8 SCC 23], while Shri R. S. Patel on Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and Ors. |jt 1994 (3) SC 525] and Union of India v. Joginder Sharma [jt 2002 (7) SC 425].