- (1.) Heard Sri H.G.S. Parihar assisted by Mohd. Kamal Khan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, as well as Sri A. K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the respondents.
(2.) By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, dated 24.12.2014 by which the Original Application filed by him seeking compassionate appointment and challenging the orders passed by the officials-opposi0te parties denying the same, has been dismissed.
(3.) The father of the petitioner who was an employee of the official-opposite parties, died in harness on 20.190.2005. Soon thereafter in 2006 the mother of the petitioner submitted an application for grant of compassionate appointment to her son i.e. the petitioner herein. Subsequently she withdrew her request in the year 2008 and requested that instead of her son she may be considered for compassionate appointment as the son was not looking after her needs. Vide letter dated 06.04.2011 she was informed that the case of her son was considered earlier also but he secured only 46 points, thereafter she submitted a representation dated 22.02.2008 for consideration of her case instead of her son mentioning therein that the conduct of her son towards her was not appropriate. As she had secured 60 points, therefore, her matter had been forwarded further, but it was no longer possible to consider the case of her son for compassionate appointment. During pendency of the matter before the High Powered Committee the mother of the petitioner again made a request to the opposite parties that instead of her the petitioner may be considered for compassionate appointment but the opposite parties promptly informed her that this was not possible and that her case was under consideration. Thereafter the Assistant General Manager wrote to the Chief General Manager Telecom, U. P. (East) Circle, Lucknow communicating the rejection of the case of the petitioner's mother i.e. Srimati Madhuri Rogers on the ground that the family was not found to be living in penury. Accordingly the Committee had recommended for rejection of the request under the provisions of the scheme for the purpose in accordance with the instructions of the Department of Personnel and Training dated 09.10.1998. The said letter also mentioned the fact that the family was living in a rented house, it was getting pension of Rs.1800/- plus D.A. etc. and other terminal benefits amounting to Rs.6,22,801/- had also been paid to it. Thereafter another letter dated 13.10.2011 was issued communicating the decision dated 17.06.2011 declining her claim for compassionate appointment and also that it was not possible now to consider the claim of her son i.e. the petitioner herein. Vide another letter dated 13.10.2011 the Assistant General Manager, Lucknow again communicated to the petitioner's mother about rejection of her claim for compassionate appointment by the High Powered Committee keeping in view the assets, limited liabilities and over all assessment of the financial condition of the deceased official.;