MADHU SUDAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for short "CAT") in O.A.No.060/00968/2014 had challenged the minutes of meeting dated 6.1.2010 (Annexure A-8), orders dated 13.1.2010 (Annexure A-6) and 19.9.2014 (Annexure A-10), vide which the application for compassionate employment on account of death of his father on 3.11.2006, while in harness, had been declined. Having remained unsuccessful, he has approached this Court by way of present petition.

(2.) Mr.Anshul Gupta, Advocate for Mr.Saurabh Arora, learned counsel representing the petitioner submitted that the father of the petitioner initially was appointed as Mail Oversear in the Postal Department. Unfortunately, he died on 3.11.2006 while performing his duties, leaving behind his wife and four children, i.e., two sons and two daughters. On account of his death, the petitioner was eligible for appointment on compassionate ground in pursuance to the policy dated 9.10.1998 (Annexure A-2) and resultantly submitted an application/ declaration dated 20.11.2007 (Annexure A-3). It was also mentioned that the children of the deceased were unemployed and did not own any immovable property.

(3.) He further submitted that respondent No.3, i.e., Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Hoshiarpur Division, District Hoshiarpur recommended the case of the petitioner. However, during the interregnum, on 29.6.2007, the petitioner was employed as Postman on temporary basis at Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur and worked upto 2010. Vide order dated 13.1.2010 (Annexure A-6), the claim of the petitioner was rejected. The said order was communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 15.1.2010 (Annexure A-7). According to the learned counsel, the minutes of the meeting dated 6.1.2010 attached with the Original Application shows that the reasons for rejecting the claim of the petitioner are not only arbitrary but discriminatory. The respondents have adopted pick and choose policy. The claim of the petitioner has been rejected without considering the fact that one daughter of the deceased is of marriageable age, whereas the other two children are still studying. Resultantly, the mother of the petitioner submitted a representation (Annexure A-9) and vide letter dated 19.9.2014 (Annexure A-10), the Circle Relaxation Committee found the case of the petitioner not covered to be of an indigent. The petitioner, while performing the duty on temporary basis, was assured absorption on regular basis. The CAT has rejected the claim in a most erroneous and perverse manner and, therefore, the order is not sustainable. It was urged that the petitioner approached the CAT on 14.10.2014 as his counsel, Shri R.S.Manhas, had informed him that the matter was pending in the Court and, therefore, in such circumstances, the cause of action accrued to the applicant on 19.9.2014 and resultantly filing of the Original Application on 14.10.2014 could not have been said to be barred by law of limitation. The CAT has erroneously relied upon the judgment rendered by the Apex Court while dismissing the Original Application, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The minutes of the meeting dated 6.1.2010 do not reflect application of mind. It was contended that the order dated 13.1.2010 could not be challenged earlier as the petitioner, who had engaged the counsel, did not file the case and, thus, petitioner cannot be penalised for the same.