Dipankar Datta,J. - (1.) The Central Administrative Tribunal, Calcutta Bench (hereafter the 'tribunal') dismissed O.A. 1016 of 2006 by a judgment and order dated 9th April, 2008, which is the subject matter of challenge in this writ petition.
(2.) The petitioners before this Court, who were the applicants before the Tribunal, are the widow and a son of late Thakur Charan Paul, a Central Government employee (hereafter the 'employee'). The employee breathed his last on 1st February, 1998.
(3.) The petitioner no. 1, immediately after the death of the employee, applied for appointment of the petitioner no. 2 on compassionate ground. Upon receipt of the application, the respondents initiated a process to obtain reports regarding movable/immovable property left behind by the employee as well as the financial condition of the family members of the employee. By the time the requisite reports were obtained, the process for filling up 5% of the total vacancies earmarked for appointment on compassionate ground for the recruitment year 1998 had been completed and, therefore, the case of the petitioner no. 2 could not be considered for that year i.e. 1998. However, the claim of the petitioner no. 2 was subsequently considered thrice, i.e. in 1999, 2001 and 2004. In none of the processes initiated for the aforesaid years, the petitioner no. 2 could qualify for appointment within the quota of 5%. By a communication dated 14th October, 2004, the petitioner no. 1 was informed that the petitioner no. 2 having failed to qualify for appointment on compassionate ground on three occasions, her 'case will not be kept under consideration during the next recruitment year and the same might be treated as closed'. The petitioners did not immediately thereafter question the action of the respondents in refusing the prayer for appointment on compassionate ground; instead, they went on making representations dated 7th September, 2005, 5th October, 2005 and 23rd December, 2005. Referring to office letters dated 23rd September and 8th December, 2005, the Assistant Works Manager/Admin. for General Manager, Metal and Steel Factory vide communication dated 27th January, 2006 informed the petitioner no. 1 once again that her prayer for appointment of the petitioner no. 2 on compassionate ground 'could not be acceded to since .....case has already been considered on three occasions'. It is this communication dated 27th January, 2006 as well as the previous letters dated 23rd September, 2005 and 8th December, 2005, which were made the subject matter of challenge before the tribunal. ;