Rajan Roy, J.@mdashHeard Sri H.G.S. Parihar assisted by Mohd. Kamal Khan, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, as well as Sri A.K. Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, dated 24.12.2014 by which the Original Application filed by him seeking compassionate appointment and challenging the orders passed by the officials-opposi0te parties denying the same, has been dismissed.
3. The father of the petitioner who was an employee of the official-opposite parties, died in harness on 20.10.2005. Soon thereafter in 2006 the mother of the petitioner submitted an application for grant of compassionate appointment to her son i.e. the petitioner herein. Subsequently she withdrew her request in the year 2008 and requested that instead of her son she may be considered for compassionate appointment as the son was not looking after her needs. Vide letter dated 06.04.2011 she was informed that the case of her son was considered earlier also but he secured only 46 points, thereafter she submitted a representation dated 22.02.2008 for consideration of her case instead of her son mentioning therein that the conduct of her son towards her was not appropriate. As she had secured 60 points, therefore, her matter had been forwarded further, but it was no longer possible to consider the case of her son for compassionate appointment. During pendency of the matter before the High Powered Committee the mother of the petitioner again made a request to the opposite parties that instead of her the petitioner may be considered for compassionate appointment but the opposite parties promptly informed her that this was not possible and that her case was under consideration. Thereafter the Assistant General Manager wrote to the Chief General Manager Telecom, U. P. (East) Circle, Lucknow communicating the rejection of the case of the petitioner''s mother i.e. Srimati Madhuri Rogers on the ground that the family was not found to be living in penury. Accordingly the Committee had recommended for rejection of the request under the provisions of the scheme for the purpose in accordance with the instructions of the Department of Personnel and Training dated 09.10.1998. The said letter also mentioned the fact that the family was living in a rented house, it was getting pension of Rs. 1800/- plus D.A. etc. and other terminal benefits amounting to Rs. 6,22,801/- had also been paid to it. Thereafter another letter dated 13.10.2011 was issued communicating the decision dated 17.06.2011 declining her claim for compassionate appointment and also that it was not possible now to consider the claim of her son i.e. the petitioner herein. Vide another letter dated 13.10.2011 the Assistant General Manager, Lucknow again communicated to the petitioner''s mother about rejection of her claim for compassionate appointment by the High Powered Committee keeping in view the assets, limited liabilities and over all assessment of the financial condition of the deceased official.
4. The mother of the petitioner never challenged the aforesaid order before the Central Administrative Tribunal. Her son, in fact, never applied himself for compassionate appointment an never submitted any application form for the said purpose to the opposite parties but it was his mother who had requested for his appointment from time to time, irrespective of the change in her stand, as already noticed hereinabove.
5. The submission of Sri Parihar, learned counsel for the petitioner, firstly, is that the financial condition of the family was such that the rejection of the claim on this ground was apparently unsustainable. He drew the attention of the Court to certain documents to show that the family pension of only Rs. 1800/- was being paid. He submitted that the rent of the house itself was substantial. Loans had been taken by the family which still remain to be paid. According to him these aspects belie the rejection by the opposite parties. He also submitted that the case of the petitioner was wrongly considered under the modified policy for compassionate appointment dated 27.06.2007 though his father had died earlier i.e. on 20.10.2005. The said policy not being retrospective but only prospective was not applicable to the petitioner. In this regard he relied upon the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of
6. On the other hand Sri Chaturvedi, learned counsel for opposite parties, submitted that the petitioner had never applied for compassionate appointment. It was his mother alone who had submitted applications from time to time for her own appointment and also for appointment of the petitioner. The claim of the mother had been rejected by the High Powered Committee on the basis of financial condition of the family. The mother did not challenge the impugned order before the Tribunal. Therefore, she has accepted the recitals contained therein. The petitioner never having applied could not challenge in this regard. Even otherwise he had secured only 46 points as against minimum 55 required for being eligible for his case being forwarded to the High Powered Committee. The policy dated 27.06.2007 was in continuation of the earlier policy dated 09.10.1998. There was only partial modification of the earlier policy and not supersession of the same. The case for compassionate appointment was rightly considered under the modified policy dated 09.10.1998 and there was no error on this count.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. We do not find any error in the impugned judgment.
8. Indisputably the petitioner never applied for compassionate appointment on the prescribed proforma. It was the mother of the petitioner who requested for compassionate appointment. Initially the request was for her own appointment, thereafter for the petitioner''s appointment and she kept on changing it from time to time. The official opposite parties categorically informed her that it was not possible to consider the case of her son as he secured only 46 points and also informed her that her name had already been forwarded to the High Powered Committee for consideration.
9. Even the financial condition of the family was considered and it was found that the family of the petitioner was not living in penury. From the documents on record we find that the family pension payable to the petitioner''s family is not Rs. 1800/- but 1800+DA which comes to about Rs. 7600/-. Apart from it the terminal benefits amounting to Rs. 6,22,801/- had also been paid. The family is already paying the rent of the house. In these circumstances the decision of the opposite parties to decline the claim in question cannot be faulted. The mother has accepted the impugned orders. The petitioner not having applied could not have challenged the same. Nevertheless, even on merits he does not have a case. The policy dated 09.10.1998 was modified on 27.06.2007 to the extent that a weightage points system was introduced therein to bring about uniformity and transparency in compassionate appointments. The recent decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of
10. In view of the above discussion the Tribunal has rightly dismissed the original application filed by the petitioner. The writ petition challenging the same lacks merit. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed.
