JAWARI LAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 6.9.2012 as passed in Original Application ('OA') No. 321/Jodhpur/2011 whereby the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur ('CAT') rejected the claim of the petitioner-applicant of compassionate appointment in the respondent-department. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The father of the petitioner, who had been working as GDS, MC/MD in the Department of Post, Branch Office Salawas, expired on 15.5.2009 after putting in 45 years of service but two years prior to superannuation. The petitioner-applicant applied for compassionate appointment on 7.7.2010. However, by an order dated 4.8.2010 issued from the Office of the Chief Postmaster General, Rajasthan Circle, Jaipur, the petitioner-applicant was informed that after conducting the objective financial assessment of his family, the Circle Review Committee (in short, 'Committee') did not find his family in indigent condition and hence, his case was not recommended for compassionate appointment. It was stated that as per the report made by the Committee, the family of the deceased employee (father of petitioner-applicant) was comprising of widow, three married sons and three married daughters; it had received the terminal benefits of Rs. 58,000/-; owns a house they were living in; and holds a land property admeasuring 6.5 bighas and valued at Rs. 5.4 lacs. Besides, the Committee also observed that all the three sons of the deceased employee were settled with each earning Rs. 48,000/- per annum from private jobs. On the basis of this report, the respondent-department refused to grant appointment to petitioner-applicant on compassionate basis.

(2.) Before the CAT, the petitioner-applicant stated the grievance that he possessed adequate academic and professional qualifications to be considered for appointment and that his case was not considered in accordance with the mandatory provisions contained in the circulars (DOP & T OMs) issued by the Government of India on 4.7.2005 and 5.5.2003 according to which, a case for compassionate appointment is required to be considered three times. The respondent-department contested the case and submitted that the deceased employee had served for about 45 years and expired just two years prior to his attaining superannuation age; and the family of the deceased employee was not in indigent condition.

(3.) The CAT, after considering all the material aspects, dismissed the OA while emphasizing on the object of Compassionate Appointment Scheme. The CAT observed that the very object of the Scheme was to enable the family in indigent condition to meet with the crisis arising out of the sudden death of the Government servant; and, for assessing the degree of indigence, the Committee objectively assesses each case within prescribed parameters and its recommendations cannot be brushed aside. While dealing with the ground of non-compliance of relevant provisions, the CAT observed that appointment on compassionate basis was limited to 5% of the direct recruitment vacancies in Group 'C' and Group 'D' posts and for this reason, the Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training had decided to consider each applicant at least thrice in three consecutive years for grant of compassionate appointment; but, when the case of the applicant was not even recommended, there was no question of considering him thrice. The CAT also observed that there was no arbitrariness or illegality in the Committee not recommending the case of the applicant who was 45 years in age and whose family was comparatively well-settled.