M.M. Kumar, J. - (1.) THE un -successful applicant -Petitioner has filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution against the order dated 20.1.2011 (P -3) rendered by the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for brevity, 'the Tribunal') rejecting his claim for compassionate appointment in lieu of death of his father in harness on 12.10.2005.
(2.) ON 11.5.2006, the applicant -Petitioner made an application seeking compassionate appointment on a Group -C post. On 29.5.2008, the General Manager, Telecom, District Patiala -Respondent No. 4 rejected his request on the basis of the recommendations made by a Committee under the Weightage Point System, which was introduced on 27.6.2007 (A -9). The Committee after considering the case came to the conclusion that the net points earned by him were less than 55 and that the family of the ex -employee was not living in an indigent condition (A -1). Feeling aggrieved, the applicant -Petitioner filed O.A. No. 351/PB/10 before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the original application, vide order dated 20.1.2011 by observing as under: At the outset, it may be pointed out that compassionate appointment is not a hereditary right and it is given only to meet the immediate financial hardship in which the family may have been driven after death of the sole bread -winner. The compassionate employment could be offered only against a regular vacant post and if there is no such post, no offer of appointment could be made. Further, such an employment could be offered in accordance with the instructions on the subject and on the basis of and the criteria laid down for the purpose. Appointment on compassionate grounds has to be made within a reasonable period and as per latest instructions of the Govt. of India, the maximum period for which case of an individual for compassionate employment could be kept for consideration is 3 years, after which it is to be finally closed. We find that the case of the applicant has been considered by the Respondents, but since he could not secure the requisite points (i.e. 55) so as to be eligible for compassionate appointment in terms of the laid down criteria, no interference is called for by this Tribunal with the order of rejection of his case. Moreover, the death of the Govt. employee had occurred in October 2005 and family has somehow continued to survive for all these years without assistance, the element of 'immediate hardship' is missing in this case. The OA is, therefore, held to be devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs. The grievance of the applicant -Petitioner is that the Respondents as well as the Tribunal have erred in law in not considering the fact that his case for compassionate appointment ought to have been considered under the instructions dated 9.10.1998, issued by the Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training (A -8) instead of subsequent instructions dated 27.6.2007 (A -9), whereby the 'weightage point system' was introduced for processing the cases of compassionate appointment. In that regard reliance has been placed on a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Sheela Devi v. State of Haryana, 2008 (4) SCT 475.
(3.) HAVING heard learned Counsel for the applicant -Petitioner at a considerable length and perused the paper book with his able assistance, we are of the view that there is no merit in the instant petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. At the outset it would be pertinent to refer to the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment -1998 framed by the Government of India, dated 9.10.1998 (A -8). The striking feature of the said Scheme is that it has been framed keeping in view various judgments of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Auditor General of India v. G. Ananta Rajeswara Rao : (1994) 1 SCC 192; Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana : JT 1994 (3) SC 525 Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Mrs. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar : JT 1994 (2) SC 183 Himachal Road Transport Corporation v. Dinesh Kumar : JT 1996 (5) SC 319 Hindustan Aeronautics Limited v. Smt. A. Radhika Thirumalal : JT 1996 (9) SC 197 and State of Haryana v. Rani Devi, JT 1996 (6) SC 646 as also on the basis of various recommendations made by the Fifth Central Pay Commission and Study Reports of 1990 and 1994 prepared by the Department of Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances on the subject of compassionate appointments. Para 5 of the Scheme contain eligibility conditions which prescribe as under:;