DILLIP KUMAR NAYAK Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE claim of the petitioner before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.771 of 1996 was rejected vide judgment and order dated 28.6.2000. The review application filed before the Tribunal, which was registered as Review Application No.26 of 2000, was also dismissed vide order dated 29.8.2002. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to the opposite parties to give him appointment on compassionate ground under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the father of the petitioner, while working as Postal Assistant (H.S.G.) in the Cuttack G.P.O. under the administrative control of the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Cuttack City Division, Cuttack, died on 4.5.1995 leaving behind seven children including the petitioner. The eldest son of the deceased, namely, Kabisurya Nayak, who is the elder brother of the petitioner, had got employment during the life time of his father under the Railway Administration and started living separately from the month of August, 1989. It is alleged that the father of the petitioner was the sole bread earner of the family. As the condition of the family was indigent, the petitioner applied before the competent authority to provide him appointment on compassionate ground under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme, but the same was rejected by opposite party No.3, i.e., Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Cuttack Division, Cuttack vide order dated 4.12.1995 on the ground that his elder brother was already working under the Railways and getting salary of Rs. 3670.00 per month and his mother was also getting pension at the rate of Rs. 900.00 per month. As such, the family was not in an indigent condition requiring compassionate appointment. The petitioner again made a representation agitating his grievance in the month of January 1996 but no action was taken. His mother filed an appeal before the Chief Post Master General, Orissa Circle. The petitioner also approached the Director General who referred the matter to the Circle Office, Bhubaneswar and the same was again rejected on the ground that the Circle Relaxation Committee had already considered his case and rejected the same. Thereafter he filed the aforesaid O.A. before the Tribunal stating therein that the Revenue Inspector had made enquiry and submitted a report that the eldest son of the deceased was living separately from the family since long. Besides, the Sarpanch of the Grama Panchayat of the petitioner had also granted a certificate in that regard, but the same was not considered. It was further averred that the Circle Relaxation Committee took into account the gratuity amount of Rs. 83,000/ - and family pension of Rs. 900/ - per month paid to the widow after the death of the deceased. It also took into account the annual income of Rs.2000/ - from agricultural source and the fact that the elder brother of the petitioner was already in employment under the Railway Administration. Ultimately, the Circle Relaxation Committee held that the petitioners family was not in distressed condition and so it rejected the prayer of the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal but his claim was rejected, as mentioned above.

(3.) THE general principle for providing compassionate appointment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme is that at the time of death of the deceased, it is to be seen as to who are his dependents and what was their need. Further, whether the income from all sources after the death of the deceased could meet the requirements of the family members who were dependents on him.