VIJAY KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has challenged the judgment of Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (Circuit at Shimla), rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. It was contended by the petitioner before the learned Tribunal that his father Shri Jagdish Verma was permanently incapacitated to perform government duties and was retired on 10.1.2003. The petitioner herein had applied for consideration for appointment on compassionate grounds on 17.12.2003. His case was rejected on the ground that family of the deceased (sic retired) had received terminal benefits and were drawing regular family pension. The family also possess a house and landed property. It is also urged that there is no vacancy in the prescribed quota for compassionate appointment in the postal circle in which father of the petitioner was working. The request was therefore declined.

(2.) LEARNED Tribunal, therefore, rejected the petitioners' case on the ground that since terminal benefits have been received, the case of the petitioner could not be considered as it could not be a case where the family/petitioner was in dire need of employment. Further, the family also possess land measuring 0.30.29 hectares with annual income of Rs. 5,000/ - per annum. After the death of father of the petitioner, family pension of Rs. 6351/ - per month was being paid. We are unable to accept the reasoning of the learned Tribunal. Even if the family is in receipt of terminal benefits, they cannot be debarred from seeking compassionate appointment. In Naresh Kumar versus State of H.P. and others CWP No. 2260 of 2013 -F, Division Bench of this Court relying on the judgment of this court in Vikas Kumar versus State of H.P. & others CWP No. 9965 of 2011 decided by one of us (Hon'ble Justice Sanjay Karol, J.), holding that terminal benefits are not to be counted for considering compassionate appointment. The decision of the Supreme Court in Govind Prakash Verma versus Life Insurance Corporation of India and others,, (2005) 10 SCC 289 was relied upon. On the plea of the respondent that family has landed property, we are unable to accept that in absence of any proof on record and in any event the petitioner and his family is earning only Rs. 450/ - per month. In these circumstances, we quash and set aside the order of learned Tribunal so also Annexure A -4 with a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate post in accordance with law.