Hemant Gupta, J. - (1.) THIS order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition No. 5994 -CAT of 2007, filed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the "Tribunal') dated 31.8.2006, whereby the petitioners were directed to reconsider the claim of the applicant -Racho Devi for her appointment on compassionate ground against any available post meant for the purpose; Civil Writ Petition No. 5999 -CAT of 2007, filed against the order of the Tribunal dated 30.8.2006, whereby the petitioners were directed to reconsider the claim of the applicant -Bhupinder Kaur for her appointment on compassionate ground against any available post meant, for the purpose and Civil Writ Petition No.6962 -CAT of 2007, filed against the order of the Tribunal dated 14.11.2006 whereby the petitioners were directed to consider the claim of the applicant No.2 -Balvir Singh for Class -IV post.
(2.) SINCE the issues arising in all the three petitions are the same, therefore, all the three cases ate being disposed of by a common order. However, primarily, the facts are taken from Civil Writ Petition No. 5994 -CAT of 2007. In the aforesaid case, Mohinder Pal, husband of respondent No. 1 was posted as Constable in the Chandigarh Police. He died on 9.4.1998. The respondent No. 1 moved an application for appointment on compassionate ground as she has three children of the age of 11 years, 9 years and 7 years and has no source of livelihood. The application of respondent No. 1 dated 30.6.1998 to seek appointment on compassionate ground, was considered by a Common Committee of the Union Territory Administration, constituted for consideration of such requests.
(3.) IT is pointed out that though the name of the applicant -respondent No. 2 was recommended for appointment, but vide communication dated 18.3.2005, Annexure A -16, the request was deleted being more than 3 years old. It is the said communication which was made subject matter of challenge before the learned Tribunal. It is contended by the petitioners that the scheme of compassionate appointment was circulated by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension, on 9.10.1998. The respondent No. 2 being eligible for appointment under the aforesaid Scheme, is entitled to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground against 5% posts of the direct recruitment. It is also contended that the name of the respondent No.2 has been deleted being more than 3 years old case. It is pointed out that against the 49 Group -C posts, 4 posts had already been filled up through compassionate appointments and similarly out of 133 Group -D posts, 13 posts were filled up by way of compassionate appointment and, thus, there is no post available which can be filled up out of the candidates seeking appointment on compassionate ground. Reliance was placed on a circular dated 5.5.2003 wherein maximum time to keep the name of a person under consideration for offering compassionate appointment, was contemplated to be 3 years. Since there was no vacancy against which the applicant could be appointed, therefore, her name was rightly deleted.;