Ajay Kumar Mittal, J. - (1.) The petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 31.7.2013, Annexure P.6 passed by respondent No.1 vide which his prayer for appointment on compassionate grounds has been dismissed. Further prayer has been made for a direction to respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to consider the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds in sympathetic manner.
(2.) A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the petition may be noticed. Father of the petitioner Late Shri Karam Singh was appointed in Military Engineering Service w.e.f 01.8.1977. He expired on 6.2.1999 at the age of 44 years leaving behind his widow, one minor son and two minor daughters. The mother of the petitioner Smt.Sukhjeet Kaur submitted an application on 4.8.1999 before respondent Nos. 3 and 4 to consider her for compassionate appointment on the ground that her husband who was the only bread earner of the family had died and there was no source of income. The said request was declined after about four years vide letter dated 28.6.2003, Annexure P.1. Further requests made by the mother of the petitioner were also declined vide orders dated 7.8.2003 and 31.12.2003. Thereafter, she requested respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to consider her son for employment which was also declined vide letter dated 13.4.2006, Annexure P.3. The petitioner on attaining the age of majority represented to Garrison Engineer AF, Bhisiana in June 2010 to consider him for public employment but did not get any reply. Thereafter, the petitioner served a legal notice which was replied vide letter dated 17.8.2012 stating that his case could not be considered at belated stage. The petitioner filed application under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh with a prayer to issue directions to respondent Nos. 2 to 4 to consider him for appointment. During the pendency of the case, the petitioner received letters dated 20.6.2013 and 24.5.2013 from the respondents requiring him to report Head Quarter Chief Engineer (AF) WAC Palam for interview on 4.6.2013 at 10.30 AM in connection with compassionate appointment. The petitioner appeared for interview but no interview was held. He was asked to hand over the copies of certificates and was told that since he had approached the Tribunal, his case could not be considered at that stage. The application filed before the Tribunal was also dismissed vide order dated 31.7.2013, Annexure P.6. Hence the instant petition by the petitioner before this Court.
(3.) A written statement has been filed by respondent No.4 wherein it has been inter alia stated that the case of the mother of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was considered by the competent authority four times and was ultimately closed in September 2002 by passing a speaking order dated 31.12.2003. It was stated that there was non-availability of the sufficient vacancies and case of mother of the petitioner was found very low on merits taking into consideration the criteria of eligibility and suitability for the post. As per the rules, only 5% out of the total number of direct recruit vacancies were earmarked for grant of appointment on compassionate basis. Further, the case of the petitioner was time barred. On these premises, prayer for dismissal of the petition has been made.;