- (1.) Heard Sri B.K. Singh Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Sri B.N. Pandey, learned counsel for the contesting respondent. Pleadings have been exchanged. With consent of teamed counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally at this stage.
(2.) The father of respondent No. 1 was an employee of the Central Excise and Custom Department He died in harness in the year 1996. The respondent No. 1 applied for appointment on compassionate ground, which application was kept pending, and when no decision was taken despite reminders by the respondent No. 1, the respondent No. 1 approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad: His application was disposed of by the Tribunal in the year 2005 with the direction to decide his representation. On such representation having been rejected, the respondent No. 1 challenged the same before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow which has allowed the application of the respondent No. 1 by the impugned order dated 14.3.2008. Challenging the same, this writ petition has been filed.
(3.) The Tribunal disposed of the original application of the respondent No. 1 with the direction to consider the case of the respondent No. 1 for appointment on compassionate ground in the grade of Tax Assistant on the availability of vacancy in that quota. This direction was given on the statement made by the respondents before the Tribunal (petitioners herein) which has been recorded in para 6 of the impugned order which is reproduced herein below: As the respondents themselves say that they will consider the case of the applicant on availability of vacancy in the cadre of Tax Assistant, so it seems just and proper to direct them to reconsider the case of the applicant for compassionate appointment in the cadre of Tax Assistant on availability of vacancy in direct quota.;