- (1.) This appeal has been preferred against the decision of the learned Single Judge in which he has rejected the claim of the Appellant/Petitioner for employment on compassionate grounds. The Appellant's father died on 21st March, 2012 while working in the Housing Board. The learned Single Judge has rejected the claim mainly on the ground that the Appellant's father died when there were less than two years for him to retire. This rule was contained in the notification issued under No. 30-EMP. However, that notification has been modified and the latest notification is No. 114-EMP issued on 14th August, 2008. Under this notification the requirement of having more than two years service left for the deceased employee has been deleted. Therefore, unfortunately the learned Single Judge has proceeded on a wrong footing, obviously because the latest Notification was not brought to this notice.
(2.) We have considered the enquiry report submitted by the Authorities rejecting the claim of the Appellant in terms of the order No. 30-EMP as well as No. 114-EMP. It appears that the claim of the Appellant was rejected on the ground that the joint family income was more than 90% of what his father earned while he was in service. However, from the report it is evident that what has been taken into consideration is the income earned from the interest on the retiral benefits and the family pension. The brother's income has been taken into account without mentioning the exact amount that he earns. Whether the inclusion of this amount together with the interest earned on the retiral benefits and family pension would result in the Appellant having 90% of the income of his deceased father, has not been calculated before rejecting his claim for compassionate appointment. No valuation has been made in respect of the land or the agricultural produce.
(3.) In these circumstances, in our opinion, it would be in the interest of justice if a fresh consideration of the Appellant's case is made by the Authorities.;