Permod Kohli, J. - (1.) This writ petition is directed against the judgment dated 23.05.2011 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred as 'Tribunal') Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh dismissing the OA filed by the petitioners challenging the order dated 30.03.2011 whereby the claim of the petitioners for compassionate appointment has been rejected.
(2.) Briefly stated, the facts necessary for disposal of the present petition are that petitioner No.1 is the widow and petitioner No.2 is son of Late Ram Udhar, who was Poultry Attendant with respondent department. He died in harness on 27.06.1999. Petitioner No.1 applied for compassionate appointment of her son Chander Parkash - petitioner No.2 vide application dated 11.08.1999. Claim of the petitioners was recommended for Group T3 post vide letter dated 30.06.2001, however, respondents rejected the claim vide letter dated 06.11.2003.
(3.) Feeling aggrieved, petitioners filed OA No.1094/CH/2003. This application was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 08.10.2004. Order of the Tribunal was assailed before this Court in CWP No.1630-CAT of 2005. The claim of the petitioners was rejected under the Government instructions dated 05.05.2003 wherein 5% posts were earmarked for compassionate appointment. The contentions raised by the petitioners before the Tribunal and before this Court was that new Compassionate appointment policy has no application and it is only the scheme dated 09.10.1998, which was invogue at the time of death of the employee that governs the claim of the petitioners. It was further contended that the claim of the petitioners was required to be considered under the old scheme dated 09.10.1998. The contentions were accepted by this Court vide judgment dated 08.12.2010. While rejecting the contentions of the respondents of placing a cap of 5% of total posts for compassionate appointment, respondents were directed to reconsider the case of the petitioners for compassionate appointment. Judgment of the Tribunal dated 06.11.2003 was set aside and the matter remitted to respondents. Consequent upon the aforesaid order, respondents reconsidered the claim of the petitioners for compassionate appointment and again rejected the same vide order dated 30.03.2011 (Annexure A-1).;