ANITA RANI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that the orders of the respondents refusing to grant compassionate appointment to her be set aside and the respondents be directed to grant compassionate appointment to her. The facts shortly stated are that the petitioner's father was employed as Gangman with the Northern Railways. He died on 4.3.1969 while in service. At that time the petitioner was 2 1/2 years old. According to the petitioner her mother remarried in the year 1975 and she thereafter was looked after by her grand father. The petitioner passed matriculation in the year 1983.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, she, on attaining the age of majority on 20.7.1984 made representations dated 11.9.1984 and 31.5.1985 for appointment on compassionate grounds but she received no response. She thereafter filed a civil suit in the Court of learned Senior Sub Judge, Solan in the year 1989. The suit was decreed on 31.5.1991 to the effect that the petitioner is the daughter of deceased Rampati and she would be entitled to all benefits which would be available to her under law regarding monetary or service benefits. It is clear that there is no direction to give her employment as such. Thereafter, the petitioner filed O.A. No.1091-H.P. of 1991 before the Central Administrative Tribunal claiming that she be given appointment on compassionate grounds. The O.A. was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty reserved to make a representation to the respondents. As the representation filed by the petitioner was not decided by the respondents, the petitioner filed another O.A. No.312-HP-1992. This O.A. was decided on 4.8.1992 with the direction to the respondents that they would decide the representation within two months. The representation was rejected and thereafter the petitioner filed another O.A. No.203-HP-1993. This O.A. was also directed to be treated as representation to the Railway Board vide order of the Tribunal dated 24.12.1993. This representation was also rejected. Thereafter, the petitioner filed another O.A. being O.A. No.457-HP of 1997. This O.A. was rejected vide the impugned order dated 2nd May, 1997. The Tribunal held that the respondents had rejected the application of the present petitioner on the ground that her mother had re-married and that compassionate employment was to be given only to tide-over the immediate sudden crisis on the death of an employer and is not to be granted after a very long period. The Tribunal held that the decision of the respondents can not be held arbitrary or illegal. Hence, the present writ petition.

(3.) THE Supreme Court in Union Bank of India and others v. M.T.Latheesh, (2006) 7 Supreme Court Cases 350, while setting aside the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court of Kerala, held as follows:-