RAJESH KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The un-successful applicant-petitioner has filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against the order dated 22.4.2009 (P-4) rendered by the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for brevity, 'the Tribunal') rejecting his claim for compassionate appointment in lieu of death of his father in harness on 19.7.2004.

(2.) A perusal of the paper book reveals that after the death of her husband Smt. Mukhtiari Devi made an application, dated 7.8.2004, seeking compassionate appointment for the applicant-petitioner. On 21.4.2008 (A-1), the respondents informed the mother of the applicant-petitioner that her request for compassionate appointment has been closed in view of the fact that as per the rules prevailing at that time the compassionate appointments could be made within three years after the death of the employee out of 5% direct recruitment. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant-petitioner filed O.A. No. 303/PB/2008 before the Tribunal.

(3.) It was pointed out by the respondents before the Tribunal that a sum of Rs. 3,05,679/- on account of pension, gratuity, GPF, CGIS and leave encashment was paid to the mother of the applicant-petitioner. It was further stated that they scored only 36 points based on various attributes to assess the financial condition of the family. During the relevant period i.e. from 2004 to 2008, there were 25 other cases pending. Furthermore, there was no vacancy during this period under 5% direct recruitment quota, therefore, all the cases were closed. The Tribunal after noticing the instructions dated 5.5.2003 issued by the Government of India came to the conclusion that three years is maximum period for which name of a person could be kept under consideration for compassionate appointment. The Tribunal also found that the respondents considered the case of the applicant-petitioner and prepared a comparative list in which his name figures at Sr. No. 3. However, after lapse of the period of three years, the cases were closed. The Tribunal accordingly dismissed the original application holding that no discrimination has been made. It has further been specifically noticed that the applicant-petitioner has managed to survive all these years and the object of providing compassionate appointment is to enable the family of the deceased to tide over the sudden crisis. Such appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right or on hereditary basis.