ANIL KUMAR Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRAIVE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, being the son of Gurdas Mal, who died in harness when he was serving as Assistant Post Master in main Post Office at Pathankot claimed compassionate appointment from the contesting respondents. Though Gurdas Mal died on 3.3.2006, the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was taken by Circle Relaxation Committee (CRC) in its meeting held on 6.1.2010. As only 5% of vacancy that has arisen for direct recruitment has been earmarked for appointment on compassionate appointment, the claim of the petitioner along with 22 other claimants was considered by CRC on 6.1.2010 and his claim was rejected.

(2.) Heard the submissions made on either side.

(3.) We find that the contesting respondents have adopted certain yardsticks while considering the claim for compassionate appointment. As per the yardstick adopted by the contesting respondents, the petitioner was not found most deserving for appointment. It is brought to our notice that Gagandeep Singh, Mehtab Singh and Nikhil Gill, whose respective claim for compassionate appointment was also considered with the petitioner, were not found deserving earlier by the contesting respondents. Their claims were kept alive and in the recent CRC meeting that was held on 6.1.2010 their claims were again taken up, processed and positively considered for compassionate appointment.