BALWANT SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been preferred against the judgment dated 26th August, 2004 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal,Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur( in short "the Tribunal") whereby original application of the petitioner seeking direction to the Union Government for appointing him on compassionate ground was dismissed. Earlier then approaching the Tribunal, the petitioner had gone through two rounds of litigation. He filed the first original application before the Tribunal sometime in the month of August, 2001 on the premise that his father while serving the respondents as extra departmental postal agent expired on 10.3.2001 and his application seeking appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected by the respondents without assigning any reasons on 7th August, 2001. The Tribunal by its judgment dated 2.1.2001 rejected the said original application holding that since the petitioner was not dependent on his father, he was not entitled to appointment on compassionate ground. The petitioner challenged the said judgment of the Tribunal was challenged by the petitioner before this Court in D.B.C.Writ Petition No. 4424/01. This writ petition was allowed by this Court vide judgment dated 13th May, 2002. In the judgment, it was held that whether or not a person was solely dependent on his father cannot be decided only on the basis of his marital status particularly in the rural areas. The Tribunal while dismissing the original application did not assign any reason except this and the respondents also have not disclosed the reasons for rejecting the petitioner's prayer for compassionate appointment. While allowing the writ petition, this Court directed the respondents authorities to consider the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment afresh and pass a reasoned order if the appointment is refused.

(2.) The petitioner thereupon submitted a fresh application before the respondents on 23rd May, 2002 again requesting for compassionate appointment. The respondents by order dated 23rd August, 2002 again rejected his prayer for compassionate appointment but this time by a detailed and speaking order. Appointment was declined on the premise that object of compassionate appointment was to provide immediate help to the dependent of the deceased Government servant so as to help them come out of crisis that has befallen the family due to sudden death of their sole breadwinner. In doing so, facts like number of dependents, properties of the family, their liabilities and income and also the fact if any of members of the family was employed elsewhere have to be taken into consideration. It was stated that apart from the widow of the deceased Government servant, he was survived by four sons who were all major and married. The family has no liability nor was it a case where the family was required to pay off the loan taken for treatment of the deceased Government servant. The family also held agriculture land which has duly been certified by the revenue authorities. Three of the sons of the deceased Government servant were not staying with the family and were self sufficient. There was sufficient income from the agriculture land which has been certified by the Tehsildar(Revenue) to the tune of Rs. 45,000/- p.a. Thus stating, the competent authority again rejected the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on review consideration.

(3.) Still not satisfied with the rejection of his claim, the petitioner again filed a fresh original application on 23.8.2002 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal by its judgment dated 18.7.2003 directed the respondents that the mere fact that the petitioner was married should not disentitle him from consideration for appointment on compassionate grounds. He should also not be refused compassionate appointment because only there was some other income and the 'haisiyat' of the family was Rs. 45,000/-. The respondents were required to see whether the petitioner and his mother needed any financial help on the death of the employee who was the sole breadwinner of the family. It was held that the fact that there were other sons and daughters was not relevant as they were no longer supporting the widow of the deceased. A direction was therefore again issued to the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. The petitioner again submitted a detailed application. The matter of the petitioner was then taken to Circle Relaxation Committee for a fresh consideration. The said committee in its meeting held on 13th August, 2003 again rejected the prayer of the petitioner for compassionate appointment by observing as follows :-