- (1.) HEARD the learned counsel for appellants.
(2.) PETITIONERS/appellants have preferred this intra-Court appeal challenging the impugned order of the learned Single Judge dated 22.07.2011, whereby writ petition filed by petitioners seeking compassionate appointment has been dismissed. Deceased/employee was served with a charge-sheet under Rule 16 of the CCA Rules and after holding regular enquiry, the charge was found to be proved against him and a penalty of removal from service was effected upon him vide order dated 25.05.1996. Against the said order, an appeal was preferred by him, but before outcome of the appeal, deceased/employee died on 10.08.1999 and thereafter appeal was decided by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 25.06.2001 and taking note of the fact that he died during pendency of the appeal, it appears that it was taken to be one of the consideration in mind and while upholding his guilt, penalty was converted from removal from service to compulsory retirement and it was made effective from the alleged date of absence i.e. 07.03.1991. Application filed by petitioners for compassionate appointment was rejected vide order dated 01.10.1999. After passing of the order by the Appellate Authority in 2001, petitioners again moved an application for compassionate appointment, which was again rejected on 08.04.2004. Submission of the learned counsel for appellant is that since penalty of removal from service of deceased/employee was converted into compulsory retirement, therefore, it should be assumed that deceased/employee died while in service, therefore, application for compassionate appointment could not have been dismissed. Learned Single Bench has dealt with the submissions and rejected the same. The relevant part of the order of the learned Single Bench is reproduced as under:- The submission is without substance for the reason that the ultimate fact remains that the deceased employee was initially inflicted penalty of removal from service which was later on converted into compulsory retirement with proportionate pension and whether it would relate back to the date of alleged absence or from the date of penalty inflicted is not being stressed by the petitioner and it appears that the appellate authority must have considered it for the reason that if the penalty remains as a part of the service record, that would dis-entitle the family of the deceased to claim retiral benefits and only that might be a reason for which it was converted to compulsory retirement with proportionate pension which at least will provide financial assistance to the family of the deceased but once the penalty remained as a part of the record of the deceased employee, whether it is a removal or compulsory retirement inflicted as a penalty, that certainly dis-entitles the claim for seeking compassionate appointment under the Rules, 1996. That apart, this fact cannot be brushed aside that the Government employee died way back on 10/8/1999 and the petitioner is seeking compassionate appointment under the Rules, 1996 after almost 12 years of his death which otherwise cannot be considered and is not in conformity with the object of the scheme of the Rules, 1996. Apart from above reasons assigned by the learned Single Bench, we further find that the order of 2004 rejecting application of petitioners for compassionate appointment was challenged by way of writ petition in the year 2010 i.e. after about 6 years. The deceased/employee died in the year 1999 and now we are in 2012, in these circumstances, we are of the view that there is no merit in this appeal and the reasons assigned by the learned Single Bench for dismissal of the writ petition are absolutely legal and justified and no interference in the same is called for.
(3.) THERE is no merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine.;