IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.3054 of 2010 Anup Kumar Shahi, S/o Shri Shankar Prasad Shahi, resident of Village- Bela Chhapra, P.O.- M.I.C. Bela, District- Muzaffarpur. ... Petitioner. Versus 1. The Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Communication, Govt. of India, Department of Postal, New Delhi –cum- The Director General, Department of Postal, Govt. of India, Dak Bhawan, New Delhi-110001. 2. The Chief Postmaster General, Bihar Circle, Patna- 800001. 3. The Postmaster General, Northern Region, Muzaffarpur. 4. The Director of Accounts (Postal), Exhibition Road, Patna. 5. The Senior Account Officer, Postal Department, Account Office, Exhibition Road, Patna. 6.The Superintendent, Postal Store Depot, Muzaffarpur- 842001 (Bihar). .... Respondents. ----------- 02- 22.2.2010 Heard Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Singh for the petitioner, and Mr. Sudhir Kumar Tiwary, learned Central Government Counsel for the respondents. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 24.11.2009 (Annexure-1), passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, in O.A. No.623 of 2009 (Anup Kumar Shahi Vs. The Union of India and others), whereby the original application has been rejected, and the petitioner‟s claim for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. It appears that Chandeshwar Prasad Shahi was in the services of the Postal Department and died on 16.3.2004, while still in harness. The present petitioner, being his nephew, filed his application for appointment on compassionate ground which 2 remained unattended. The petitioner, therefore, preferred the aforesaid O.A. No. 623 of 2009, praying therein for a direction to the respondent authorities to appoint him on compassionate ground. The same has been rejected by the impugned order with the following observations: “3. The applicant is nephew of the deceased. He therefore is not a family member of the deceased for the purpose of compassionate appointment. His father is alive and there is nothing to show that he was dependent on the deceased or that the deceased has left behind any family member to be maintained.” The Tribunal has in substance concluded that the petitioner did not form part of the family of the late employee. In spite of repeated queries, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to place before us the scheme or the policy decision formulated by the Union of India or the Postal Department for appointment on compassionate ground. He has not placed before us the definition of „family‟ governing such case. In other words, the petitioner before us has not been able to advance any submission to establish that he was a member of the family of the deceased. We, therefore, do not find fault with the impugned order. 3. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. (S K Katriar, J.) (Kishore K. Mandal, J.) S.K.Pathak/