MANIPAL Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The father of petitioner died on 12.8.1997. He made an application for compassionate appointment on 3.4.1998. Ultimately, the appointment had been denied to the petitioner for a number of reasons. It has been noticed by the Tribunal that the claim of the petitioner was rejected on 28.9.2001 on the ground that the widow i.e. his mother had received terminal benefits amounting to Rs. 1,77,198/-. The family is also in receipt of family pension in the sum of Rs. 1863/- + D.A. as admissible from time to time per month. The family owns a house. The family has also agricultural land. Although in the order of the Tribunal, it is stated that the family owns 1.5 acres of land. It has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the family owns only 1.5 bighas of land. Be that as it may, we are of the considered opinion that the case of the petitioner has been duly considered by the authority and it would not be appropriate for this Court to substitute its own opinion for the opinion of the competent authority. Furthermore, the law has now been well settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and others, 1994 3 JT 525 wherein it has been categorically held that the compassionate appointment is to be given to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis and to avoid the family falling into penury. We find that the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal does not suffer from any error of jurisdiction.