M.K.Mittal, J. - (1.) This petition has been filed against an order dated 26.9.20O3 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, whereby the original Application No. 1242 of 2001 filed by Rajesh Kumar the present petitioner, has been dismissed.
(2.) The facts as mentioned in the petition, in brief are that the father of the petitioner was working as watchman of 24, E.D. A.F.S. Manauri, Allahabad, for the last 27 years. He died on 4th July 1999 during his service tenure at Allahabad. At the time of the death of the petitioner's father, he was living with his two sisters. The mother of the petitioner had already died in the year 1997. The petitioner's two elder brothers are married and living separately., They are petty daily wage earners (Mazdoors). The petitioner was studying at the time of the death of his father. Now he has also the responsibility of marrying his two sisters, who are living with him. The petitioner is not working anywhere and his family is without any source of Income. According to the petitioner, the supernumerary benefits received after the death of the father were equally divided amongst the three brothers and the petitioner received about Rs. One lakh but his amount was utilized in repaying the debts taken for the treatment of hi father. The petitioner has also to spend Rs. 1000/- per month towards the treatment of his younger sister who is suffering from mental illness. In the circumstances, petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate grounds on 14.12.1999 for the post of L.D.C. (Typist Clerk) of Grade-III post. When no action was taken, he made several representations on 31.10.2000, 15.2.2001, 1.8.2001 and 24.8.2001. The representation date 24.8.2001 was decided by the Head Quarters, Maintenance Command I.A.F. Nagpur and the contention of the petitioner that he was, living in indigent circumstances, was not accepted and his application was rejected vide, order dated 24.9.2001. According to the petitioner, this rejection was not legal because no member of the family of the petitioner or for that matter, of the deceased employee, i.e. father of the petitioner, is employed anywhere.
(3.) The petitioner also contended that the Tribunal failed to consider the clause 'd' and 'e' of the compassionate employment scheme formulated by the respondents. According to him his two brothers are not supporting other members and the family is facing economic distress. The two brothers of the family are also living separately.;