- (1.) THE petitioner, aggrieved by the judgment dated 21. 8. 2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad in Original Application No. 464 of 2005, has filed this writ petition seeking writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 31. 3. 1999 and a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider his claim regarding compassionate appointment.
(2.) HEARD Shri Sharad Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Dr. Ashok Nigam, learned Additional Solicitor General of India assisted by Shri Rajeshwar Singh, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents and also perused the record. The petitioner claims to be the adopted son of Late Ram Dayal, who died in harness on 19. 5. 1996 while working as Civil Mazdoor under the Commanding Officer, 264 Company, A. S. C. Supply Depot, Allahabad. However, he made representation on 19. 9. 1996 to the Quarter Master General's Branch, Army Head Quarters, New Delhi for compassionate appointment, which was considered and rejected vide order dated 31. 3. 1999 on following grounds: "please refer to Allahabad High Court order dated 17. 1. 1999 in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 39741 of 1998. 2. Your case has been examined in reference to the above Court order. After due circumspection of the case it has been certified that your request cannot be acceded to due to the following reasons : (a)You are the only dependant of Late Mazdoor Ram Dayal. There are no other liabilities like education of children, marriage of daughters etc. of the deceased Government Servant. (b)You have got terminal benefits of about Rupees One Lakh. You are also in receipt of family pension and allowance at the existing rates. (c)You are grown up (being 21 years old), married and are maintaining your family. (d)The above mentioned facts do not indicate any factor of indigent condition of the family of the deceased. (e)Considering the large number of pending cases of compassionate employment with large families and larger liabilities your case does not deserve any merit. Moreover, employment assistance does not mean employment consideration and the very concept of it is to provide immediate financial help to the bereaved family of the deceased Government Servant, who was the sole bread earner. 3. In view of the above, the undersigned, who is the competent authority, hereby reject your case. " Aggrieved by the said order the petitioner initially filed Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 39149 of 1999 this Court, which was dismissed on the ground that he must have to approach the Tribunal. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the aforesaid Original Application the Tribunal, which was dismissed with the observation that the respondents have already considered the matter and it was not found that the family is in indigent condition warranting any judicial intervention by the Tribunal. It has further been held that for such a long time the petitioner has already maintained himself, therefore, now he cannot be said to fulfil the requirement warranting compassionate appointment.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal has not correctly dealt with his matter. We do not find any force in the submission for the reason that, admittedly, his case was considered by the authority and it was found that the petitioner after the death of his father married himself and is maintaining his family. Further, where a large number of other cases are pending deserving compassionate appointment, persons, having lesser necessity, cannot be allowed to give compassionate appointment. It is well settled legal position that the idea and object of giving compassionate appointment is to mitigate immediate hardship, which has been caused to the deceased family on account of sudden demise of the sole bread earner of the family and thus, the time is an important factor. If compassionate appointment is allowed after a reasonably long time, it would defeat the very object of assisting the family of deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis resulting due to the death of bread earner, leaving his/her family in penury and without any means of livelihood. The matter has been considered by the Apex Court as well as this Court time and again and it would be useful to have a bird's eye view on some of such authorities of Apex Court.;