M.KARPAGA VINAYAGAM, J. - (1.) THE petitioner, seeking for quashing the order dated 31.08.2007 made in O.A. No. 459 of 2006 by the Central Administrative Tribunal confirming the order of the respondent authority dated 12.08.2003 rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for claiming compassionate appointment.
(2.) THE brief facts are as follows: (i) The petitioner is the son of a Stenographer, who died in harness on 03.04.2001 while working in the respondent Company. (ii) The father of the applicant left behind his family including his widow, one unemployed son, one unmarried daughter and one divorce daughter, who was totally dependant upon the deceased father. (iii) The widow was also employed as teacher. Later on she retired. (iv) Since the family pension relating to her husband's job as well as another pension from the school where she worked was not sufficient to meet the requirements of such a big family, she applied for compassionate appointment of her son, the petitioner. (v) The claim was rejected by the respondent authorities on several occasions. Each occasion, the petitioner filed original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which in turn remanded the matter for fresh consideration. (vi) Ultimately, by the order dated 12.10.2003, the respondent authority rejected the claim for appointment on compassionate ground by giving reasons. (vii) Challenging the same, he filed an original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, which in turn, confirmed the rejection order and dismissed the original application. Hence this writ petition. The main ground urged by the counsel for the petitioner is that the mere fact that the mother, the widow getting two pensions cannot be a ground to reject the claim of compassionate appointment and even though the petitioner's mother received a lump sum amount of rupees five lakh and odd through the retrial benefits, which is not sufficient to meet the requirements of the family, that should not be taken into consideration for rejecting the claim for compassionate appointment. In support of his plea, he cited the decisions of the Supreme Court in : (2000)IILLJ1SC [Balbir Kaur v. Steel Authority of India Ltd.] and : (2008)ILLJ496SC [Mohan Mahto v. Central Coalfields Ltd.]
(3.) IN reply to the said submission Mr. Rajesh Shankar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents would cite : (2004)IIILLJ536SC [Punjab National Bank v. Ashwini Kumar Taneja] in contending that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and the impugned order dated 12.08.2003 passed by the authority as well as the order of the Tribunal dated 31.08.2007 have correctly dealt with the aspect and rejected the claim of the petitioner by giving valid lessons and, therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed.;