- (1.) Through the instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for quashing the order dated 03.11.2015, Annexure P-1 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh (in short, "the Tribunal"); order dated 31.03.2014, Annexure P2 and reply to the legal notice dated 07.06.2014, Annexure P-3, whereby his claim for compassionate appointment on account of death of his father against Group-D post has been rejected. Direction has also been sought to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on Group-D post in the light of the policy guidelines dated 09.10.1998, Annexure A.11 or in the alternative, to consider creation of supernumerary post to adjust the petitioner in accordance with the directions given by the Apex Court in Sushma Gosain and others vs. Union of India and others, 1989 AIR(SC) 1976.
(2.) A few facts relevant for the decision of the controversy involved as narrated in the petition may be noticed. The father of the petitioner late Sh. Prem Singh was employed as MTS (Multi Tasking Services) at Main Post Office, Ropar. He joined the respondent-department in the year 1984 and expired on 05.08.2003 at the age of 45 years while in service. He left behind his widow Smt. Surinder Kaur, four minor daughters and one minor son i.e. the present petitioner who was only 10 years old at the time of his death. On 15.10.2003, the mother of the petitioner, Smt. Surinder Kaur sent a request to the Office of the respondent No.5 for appointing her on compassionate grounds. Thereafter, she suffered a severe heart attack on account of which the doctors advised her complete bed rest. Thus, she was not in a position to do any job. The respondent department assured her that the case for compassionate appointment will be considered after her son attained majority. Immediately on attaining the age of majority, the petitioner made a request to the Post Master, Main Post Office, Ropar for appointment on compassionate grounds, stating that he fulfilled all the educational requirements for service and was in dire need of job because there was no source of income of their family except a meager pension of his father. Vide letter dated 22.3.2012, the office of respondent No.4 directed the petitioner to send the copy of letter issued by them regarding remittance of documents, showing whether his case had been rejected or not. Again on 04.04.2012, the office of respondent No.4 directed the petitioner to submit certain documents such as Educational Certificates, application from the wife of the deceased seeking employment for her son, No Objection Statement from other dependents of the deceased, No Property Certificate etc. The petitioner submitted all the documents vide letter dated 04.04.2012 (Annexure A-4). On 05.06.2012, the petitioner sent another letter to respondent No.4 to consider his case for compassionate appointment keeping in view his financial condition. On 01.08.2012, the mother of the petitioner sent a letter praying for compassionate appointment to her son. Vide order dated 31.03.2014, the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected by respondent No.4 on the ground that his case was not so indigent and deserving in comparison to the cases which were approved. Thereafter, the petitioner again approached the respondent authorities through his counsel vide legal notice dated 12.04.2014. Vide letter dated 07.06.2014, respondent No.4 denied compassionate appointment to the petitioner by referring to the order dated 31.03.2014 (Annexure A-8). Aggrieved by the action taken by the respondents, the petitioner filed Original Application before the Tribunal challenging the validity of the impugned order dated 31.03.2014 as well as reply to the legal notice dated 07.06.2014. The respondents jointly filed their written statement denying the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. The petitioner also filed replication to the said written statement reiterating the grounds mentioned in the original application. Vide order dated 03.11.2015, Annexure P-1, the Tribunal dismissed the application. Hence, the present writ petition by the petitioner.
(3.) We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.;