IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
CASE NO.: CWP No.18832-CAT of 2002
DATE OF DECISION : 3rd March,2009
Union of India and others .......Petitioners
versus
Raj Kumar and others
......Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR.
PRESENT: None for the petitioners.
Mr.Pawan Kumar, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. Swapan Shorey, Advocate
for the respondents.
NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.
The petitioners herein have assailed the order dated
28-02-2002 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal vide which the
present petitioners have been directed to offer compassionate appointment
to respondent No.1 against first vacancy on the post of EDDA (Extra
Departmental Delivery Agent).
As per the facts of the present case, the father of respondent
No.1, who was Group `D’ employee in Karnal Head Post Office in the
department of the petitioner, retired on medical grounds. The Circle
Relaxation Committee rejected the case of respondent No.1 for
compassionate appointment. The same was communicated to respondent
No.1 vide letter dated 28-09-2001. The respondent No.1 filed O.A seeking
CWP No.18832-CAT of 2002 -2-
quashing of the order dated 28-09-2001 passed by the Circle Relaxation
Committee. The O.A was allowed by the Central Administrative Tribunal
vide order dated 28-02-2002 by giving a direction to the petitioner-
Department to offer compassionate appointment to respondent No.1
against first vacancy on the post of EDDA.
The present petition has, therefore, been filed against the said
order of the Central Administrative Tribunal.
The said order of the Central Administrative Tribunal has been
challenged, mainly on the ground that the Tribunal cannot direct for any
appointment on compassionate grounds. Secondly, no relief could have
been granted to the respondent in view of the fixed number of vacancies
available within 5% of the direct recruitment quota, whereas such
vacancies already stood filled. Lastly, there were in all 61 applications and
the respondent could not have been preferred over all those candidates.
After carefully perusing the order of the Central Administrative
Tribunal, we find that, in fact, three persons were given compassionate
appointment in preference to the respondent. The merits of the three
candidates have been discussed in detail. After comparison of the merits of
these candidates, a finding has been recorded that the petitioners had not
correctly assessed the extent of indignation faced by the family of the
respondent which is certainly more than those of the other candidates. He
was found to be more deserving on account of the fact that he was an
ex-employee and had been released from service on account of medical
grounds. He was not even in receipt of the disability pension. One son
was married who also had four children to support, the second so i.e. the
CWP No.18832-CAT of 2002 -3-
respondent was un-employed and had two other brothers and sisters who
were younger to him who he was required to support. He himself was a
married person with two children to support. They were a large family with
no means to support themselves.
We are also informed by the learned counsel for respondent
No.2 that in pursuance to the judgment of the Central Administrative
Tribunal, respondent was given appointment as EDDA on 24-01-2003.
Ever since, he is working on the said job.
There is nothing on record to show that the findings arrived at
by the Tribunal are incorrect. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed being
devoid of merit.
(NIRMALJIT KAUR)
JUDGE
(ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA)
JUDGE
March 03, 2009
gurpreet