RAJESH KUMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the request of learned Counsel for the parties, the final arguments were heard and writ petition is being disposed of finally.

(2.) THE father of the petitioner late Shri Ram Sharan died on 2nd February, 1999 after serving the respondent -Department for about 27 1/2 years. Since he died while in service, therefore, the petitioner being his legal heir filed an application for compassionate appointment in place of his father with the consent of other legal heirs. The application of the petitioner was examined/considered by the Circle Selection Committee on 18th September, 2001. The observation of Committee was that ex -employee had left the four members viz. Widow and three sons. All the sons are major; the applicant is also married; the family has own house to live in at Jaipur; the family received the admissible terminal benefits to the tune of Rs. 1,49,207/ - and the widow is getting family pension of Rs. 1750 + DR P.M.; there are no specific social liabilities such as marriage of daughter or education of minor children, therefore, in the opinion of Committee the case of the petitioner was not covered under the guidelines governing compassionate appointment. Apart -from above, it was also observed that in view of 5% ceiling of DR quota prescribed for compassionate appointment under the existing instructions, there are no enough vacancies to accommodate the candidates within a year in the light of existing orders. The direct recruitment has been limited to 1/3rd of the vacancies arising in the year subject to a further ceiling 1% of the total sanctioned strength and as per the orders of DOP and T, 5% of the above vacancies arising under direct recruitment quota in the year will go to the really deserving candidates under compassionate appointment quota. In view of above observation of Circle Selection committee, the application of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 9/10 January, 2002 (Annexure -7) annexed with the writ petition.

(3.) A notice to show cause was issued to the respondents and in response thereto, they have filed their written reply to the writ petition, wherein they have taken a preliminary objection that petitioner has an alternative and efficacious remedy by way of original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal and without availing the alternative remedy, the present writ petition has been filed directly before this Court. On merits, it has been stated in the reply that Circle Selection Committee met on 18th September, 2001 and considered the case as per instructions on compassionate appointment contained in D.O. P and T OM N. 14014/23/99 Estt (D) dated 9.10.1998 read with OM No. 14014/23/99 Estt (D) dated 3.12.1999, the copies of which have been placed on record as Annexures R/1 and R/2. The instructions of the scheme stipulate that the scheme for compassionate appointment is intended to render immediate assistance to the family of Government servant, who dies in harness leaving his family in financial crisis. After considering all the facts and circumstances, the Committee rejected the application vide order dated 9/10th January, 2002.