- (1.)Smt. Sonali Shrivastava, learned counsel for petitioner. Shri R.S. Siddiqui, Assistant Solicitor General for the respondent Union of India.
(2.)Challenging the order dated 12/12/2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur in the matter of rejecting petitioner's claim for grant of compassionate appointment, the petitioner has filed this writ petition.
(3.)The petitioner is wife of late Shri G.G. Badgainya who was working in the respondent establishment and died in harness on 26/11/2001. Initially an application was filed seeking compassionate appointment on behalf of the petitioner the petitioner's son Hemant Kumar Badgainya when nothing was done and when his claim was rejected on the ground that there is no vacancy. Hemant Kumar Badgainya challenged the same in O.A. No. 186/2007 and the same was dismissed by the Tribunal on 06/11/2008, thereafter it is stated that the petitioner had received information under the Right to Information Act that between the year 2008 to 2013, fifteen persons have been granted compassionate appointment and therefore, contending that her son's application has rejected on the ground of non-availability of vacancies but as various persons have been granted compassionate appointment, the petitioner again approached the Tribunal. The tribunal has dismissed the same mainly on the consideration of the fact that earlier application being O.A. No. 186/2007, was dismissed on 06/11/2008 various aspect of the matter were taken note of and it was found that the claimants are not entitled for compassionate appointment. If the order passed by the tribunal earlier on 06/11/2008 in O.A. No. 186/2007 is taken note of it would be seen that the claim with regard to compassionate appointment to son of the deceased was scrutinized in accordance to the scheme and the Board constituted to consider the case of compassionate appointment found that the family had received a sum of Rs. 6,11,622/- as terminal benefit and finding that the appointment cannot be granted, the claim was rejected. In paragraph No. 5 of the order passed, the tribunal found that the applicant earned 57 marks out of 100 point in scientific process contemplated for evaluating case for grant of compassionate appointment and it is held that as the claim is considered in accordance with law, after a period of seven years, the employee is not entitled for compassionate appointment. From the findings recorded by the tribunal in paragraph No. 5 of the order passed in O.A. No. 186/2007 which is again considered by the tribunal in the impugned order, it is seen that the claim of the petitioner was not rejected only on the ground that the vacancies are not available, various aspect of the matter have been taken note of and it is a case where under the scheme formulated by the Union of India a scientific process is followed, marks are allotted on various count and thereafter merit list prepared in the said examination done in the case of the petitioner's family, received 57 marks out of 100 point and in paragraph No. 3 of the impugned order wherein paragraph No. 5 of the earlier order is reproduced the tribunal has taken not of all these factors and it is also observed that the case was not rejected only on the ground that vacancies are not available. Taking note of the totality of the facts, circumstances and reasons given by the Tribunal we see no ground to interfere into the matter, petition is therefore, dismissed.