MOHAMMED NASIR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dtd. 4/6/15 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench ('the Tribunal'), whereby Original Application preferred by the petitioner against the order dtd. 26/6/13 issued by the Assistant Postmaster General (S&V), Department of Posts, Government of India, intimating the rejection of application preferred by the petitioner herein for appointment on compassionate ground, stands dismissed.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner's father Mr. Mohammed Akhtar working as Mailman in the Department of Posts died while in service on 20/7/2000. The brother of the petitioner Mr. Mohammed Aslam submitted an application in prescribed proforma seeking appointment on compassionate ground. The application was rejected vide order dtd. 1/3/2001 as his case was not found suitable for appointment on compassionate ground under the Scheme. The legality of the order was not questioned by Mohammed Aslam by availing the appropriate remedy available under the law and the same attained finality. After a lapse of about 9 years, in the year 2010, an application was made by the petitioner's mother seeking appointment on compassionate ground for his second son, the petitioner herein, which stood rejected by the competent authority vide order dtd. 26/6/2013, on the ground that the case of the petitioner was not found indigent or comparatively indigent than the recommended cases. The representation of the petitioner for reconsideration of the decision stood rejected vide communication dtd. 14/10/2013. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an original application before the Tribunal, which stands dismissed by the order impugned. Hence, this petition.

(3.) The original application has been dismissed by the Tribunal observing that there is no provision in the Scheme of the Compassionate Appointment, under which if case of one dependent is rejected, another can be considered. The Tribunal observed that the family never challenged the order dtd. 1/3/2001, whereby application of elder son was rejected and thus, after a lapse of 9 years, another member of the family cannot claim appointment on compassionate ground. The Tribunal also noticed that the application has been rejected also on the ground that the petitioner is not found indigent or comparatively indigent than the recommended ones.