UNION OF INDIA Vs. SUNIL PASWAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SERVICE Law -Compassionate appointment -is offered as an exception to the general rule of equality in the matter of opportunities of employment under Article 16 of the Constitution of India in the matter of civil employment is to ward off immediate necessity having arisen on the death of a bread earner of the family - this necessity does not continue indefinitely so as to postpone the appointment on compassionate ground indefinitely -compassionate appointment is an exception to general rule under Article 16 of the Constitution if it is given within a reasonable time and not to be kept in abeyance for unduly long period by which the immediate necessity of providing succour ceases to exist -instantly, compassionate appointment of a minor ward postponed for consideration until two years of attainment of his majority -there cannot be any misplaced sympathy in which application moved after long period to issue a mandamus to compel the employer to consider such application time and again - order of Tribunal set aside as petitioner had clearly made out a case that he was, in the first instance, not eligible to give an application, and when subsequently gave application supported with school leaving certificate, said certificate found as suspicious -Tribunal erred in successive consideration of appointment on compassionate ground having noticed this delay in application and suspicious certificate. (Paras 17 and 21) Order Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(2.) THIS petition is directed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, dated 24th March, 2006, and relates to a matter wherein the respondent seeks an appointment on compassionate ground on account of death of his father who died in 1980 in harness. After death of the applicant 'sfather, applicant 'smother was given a compassionate appointment. The applicant was minor at that time. However, within a short period after compassionate appointment was given to the widow of deceased employee, Hirwa, she too died in 1982. According to the applicant he made his first application on 5.7.2000 in which he has made a reference to earlier representation in 1998. The petitioner had submitted alongwith his application for appointment the certificate of his School leaving dated 2.5.2000 showing that the applicant has passed Vlth Standard and he has lett School on 31st December, 1988 on completion of his studies. He was shown to have been admitted to School on 25.2.1987. In the certificate date of birth of the applicant was stated to be 10th October, 1977. Since the application did not fructify in any appointment, the applicant moved O.A No. 733 of 2002 which came to be decided on 23rd September, 2002 by the Tribunal. The Tribunal directed the respondent no. 2, the concerned authority of the Railways, to dispose of the applicant 'srepresentation dated 12th July, 2002 within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order of the Tribunal.

(3.) IN pursuance thereof the pending representation of the applicant dated 12th July, 2002 was rejected by pointing out that the applicant does not have the requisite qualification of Vlllth Class for being appointed as Class -IV service.