ARUN BANSAL PETITIONER Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in the writ petition has challenged the orders dated 24.8.2006 and 25.1.2007 (Annexures P-5 and P-8 respectively) and he further seeks quashing of order dated 8.12.2009 (Annexure P-20) passed by respondent No.1 dismissing the original application of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground to the post of Lower Division Clerk. Father of the petitioner Late Shri Raj Kumar Bansal was working as PGT (Maths) in Kendriya Vidalaya Sangathan, in Bathinda. After he expired, his widow Smt. Kamlesh Bansal was given job on compassionate ground in August,1993. Smt. Kamlesh Bansal also expired on 7.9.2004 while in service leaving behind the petitioner, his minor brother, and one sister as her only legal representatives. The petitioner applied for appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk on compassionate grounds through proper channel. However, the respondent vide letter dated 25.1.2007 rejected his case for appointment on compassionate ground. A copy of the rejection letter dated 25.1.2007 is attached as Annexure P-8. Rejection was on the ground that appointment to the post of Lower Division Clerk on compassionate ground can be made against 5% of the vacancies meant for direct recruitment. The official respondent appointed respondent No.5 to 8 on compassionate ground ignoring the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner filed original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal on 7.7.2008.

(2.) In response to the OA, the stand taken by the respondents is that the petitioner has not approached the Tribunal with clean hands. After the death of his father and mother, it was observed by respondent No.1 that he alongwith his family members have received a sum of Rs.4,03,658/- as retrial benefits. In addition to this, the family pension was granted to the surviving family members at the rate of Rs.4125/- per month plus dearness relief. His younger brother Varun Bansal is getting the family pension. The family status of the petitioner is much better than all the other respondents i.e. respondents No. 4 to 7. The observation made by the Central Administrative Tribunal ( for short "the Tribunal") is that the petitioner did not deserve any sympathy since he was in illegal occupation of the Government quarter after the death of his mother.

(3.) There has been a frivolous litigation against the respondents by filing the suit for permanent injunction by him. The suit was lateron withdrawn.