UNION OF INDIA (UOI) ORS. Vs. CHANDRESH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of this writ petition, the petitioners seeks to challenge the order dated 03.05.2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur ( 'the Tribunal') in Original Application (OA) No. 209/2007 whereby, while allowing the OA filed by the respondent -Chandresh Kumar @ Chunni Lal, the Tribunal has directed the petitioners to reconsider his claim for appointment on compassionate grounds within three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the order.

(2.) BRIEFLY put, the relevant aspects of the matter are that Shri Ratan Lal Paliwal, the father of the applicant, while working on the post of EDMC, village post office Kelwa, District Rajsamand died on 25.10.2000 leaving behind his wife and two sons. The case of the applicant had been that he applied for compassionate appointment by the application dated 27.10.2000 but was informed about rejection of such prayer by the communication dated 14.10.2005 on the ground that the condition of the applicant was not that of an indigent person. The applicant further submitted that ever since the death of his father, he was discharging the duties in Kelwa post office under the verbal orders w.e.f. 27.10.2000 and continued as such until 28.03.2007 when his services came to be terminated. The said termination order dated 28.03.2007 was questioned by the applicant in another OA that was allowed by the Tribunal by its order dated 20.03.2009 after finding that the termination effected without opportunity of hearing was improper; but the Department was left free to take action in accordance with the Rules. The said order dated 20.03.2009 was challenged by the petitioners in CWP No. 4380/2009 that was dismissed by a coordinate Division Bench of this Court by the order dated 17.02.2010 finding no error on the part of the Tribunal.

(3.) SEEKING to question the order passed by the Tribunal, the Learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that on one hand, the Tribunal has directed the petitioners to continue with the services of the applicant on Group 'D ' post in the order dated 20.03.2009 and on the other hand, by the impugned order dated 03.05.2010, the Tribunal has directed the petitioners to reconsider the case of the applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds; and the two orders run contrary to each other. It is further submitted that the competent authority after objective assessment had already rejected the case of the applicant for appointment on compassionate basis and hence, the directions of the Tribunal for reconsideration are not sustainable.