USHA DEVI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER No. 1's husband and petitioner No. 2's father late Ramsharan Tiwari was in the employment of the Department of Telecommunications of the Union of India. He died in harness on 28.3.2000. The second petitioner submitted an application in the month of May 2000 seeking compassionate appointment in place of his father. On 30.1.2002 he was informed by the respondents that his application for compassionate appointment has been considered and rejected by the High Power Committee constituted by the respondents to decide such cases. On receipt of the said letter dated 30.1.2002 (Annexure P -7) the petitioners submitted representations (Annexure P -8 and P -9) before the respondents. The respondents informed the petitioner No. 2 vide letter dated 2.2.2003 (Annexure P -10) that he has already been informed about the rejection of his claim for compassionate appointment vide letter dated 30.1.2002. Feeling aggrieved the petitioners have filed this petition.

(2.) THE respondents filed return and stated that the petitioners' case has been duly considered by the High Power Committee as per the guidelines for compassionate appointment. They stated that as per the guidelines of the respondents for making such appointments the eligibility criteria is that if the family is indigent and deserves immediate assistance for relief from financial destitution the compassionate appointment can be granted. According to the said guidelines the petitioner's case was considered and rejected by the High Power Committee by observing thus :

(3.) THE respondents contend that having regard to the guidelines for compassionate appointments the High Power Committee has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioners. They contend that the family of the deceased was not in indigent condition and was receiving Rs. 3,968/ - per month and was paid Rs. 2,73,670/ - towards terminal benefits. The other daughter of the deceased was married at the time of rejection of the claim, therefore, the decision to reject the claim cannot be said to be illegal.