@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
N. Kumar, J.@mdashThese writ petitions are filed challenging the order passed by the Tribunal, which has declined to entertain the application filed by the petitioners against the order of the Authority declining to grant appointment on compassionate grounds to the 1st petitioner. The 1st petitioner''s father - N.H. Muniyappa died on 22.11.2001 when he was working as Postal Assistant. His wife made a representation dated 04.02.2002 seeking appointment to the 1st petitioner on compassionate grounds. As he was minor on that day the Authorities after considering their representation in the Meeting held on 18.11.2003 rejected the said request by giving the reason. The same was communicated by letter dated 11.02.2004. The said communication is not challenged. However, the 1st petitioner made one more representation on 22.09.2010 seeking compassionate appointment. The same is rejected on the ground that when once the request for compassionate appointment is rejected by a considered order dated 18.11.2003, which has not been challenged yet the second application for compassionate appointment is not maintainable. It is against the said order, the present petition is filed.
2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner assailing the impugned order, contended on the day his father died the 1st petitioner was a minor. Though a representation was made by the 2nd petitioner, the order rejecting the same was not communicated to the petitioners. The family is in deep distress, they have no other avocation. Therefore, the 1st petitioner filed one more application/representation on 22.09.2010 seeking for compassionate appointment. The authorities are not justified in rejecting the same on the ground that earlier they have already rejected the request and which has become final. Therefore, he submits a case for interference is made out.
3. The Apex Court in the case of
It must be remembered that as against the destitute family of the deceased, there are millions of other families which are equally, if not more destitute.
The scheme of compassionate appointment is evolved to safeguard the indigent family of the deceased employee and to save it from the sudden shock and loss of income. However, the compassionate appointment is not a mode of recruitment.
4. In the instant case, Muniyappa died on 22.11.2001, now the 1st petitioner who is a Graduate seeking for compassionate appointment in the year 2010, nine years after the death of his father. The material on records also shows that the 2nd petitioner was gainfully employed, running a Fair Price Shop. Moreover, there are number of applicants who are in the que who have lost their main bread earner and they have no source of income. Under these circumstances, the Authorities were justified in rejecting the second application and the Tribunal was also justified in not entertaining the application against the order of the authorities. In view of the aforesaid facts, we are satisfied that no case for interference is made out with the impugned order. No merits, dismissed.
