IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.C.HARI RANI MONDAY, THE 1ST SEPTEMBER 2008 / 10TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 25813 of 2008(S) -------------------------- OA.78/2006 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONERS: ----------------- 1. THE DEPUTY PROGRAMME ADVISOR, DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH AFFAIRS & SPORTS, NATIONAL SERVICE SCHEME, REGIONAL CENTRE, BANGALORE. 2. THE DIRECTOR & PROGRAMME ADVISOR, NATIONAL SERVICE SCHEME, DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH AFFAIRS & SPORTS, NEW DELHI-1. 3. THE UNDER SECRETARY, Y-S-III-DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH AFFAIRS & SPORTS, NEW DELHI-1. 4. UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF YOUTH AFFAIRS & SPORTS, NEW DELHI. 5. THE YOUTH OFFICER I/C OF ASSISTANT PROGRAMME ADVISER, N.S.S.REGIONAL CENTRE, BLOCK D, 2ND FLOOR, C.G.O.COMPLEX, VELLAYANI.P.O, POONKULAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.TPM.IBRAHIM KHAN,SENIOR PANEL COUNSEL FOR CENTRAL GOVERNMENT RESPONDENTS: --------------------- 1. V.SASIDHARAN NAIR, S/O.SHRI K.VELAYUDHAN PILLAI, RESIDING AT MANJU NIVAS, T.C.18/1478, KUNNAPUZHA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 032. 2. MAJU.V.S, D/O.SHRI.V. SASIDHARAN NAIR, RESIDING AT MANJU NIVAS, T.C.18/1478, KUNNAPUZHA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 032. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: vkm K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & M.C.HARI RANI JJ. ----------------------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.25813 OF 2008 ----------------------------------------------------- DATED THIS THE 1st DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2008 J U D G M E N T Balakrishnan Nair, J. The respondents in Original Application No.78/06 are the writ petitioners. Applicants therein are the respondents herein. The first respondent was an employee under the writ petitioners. He was invalidated out from service on medical grounds in the year 2000. But, the writ petitioners took his invalidation as a case of voluntary retirement. But, later as per Annexure A3 order produced along with Exhibit P1 O.A., the CAT ordered that the first respondent herein shall be treated as retired under Rule 38 of C.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1972 on medical invalidation. The CAT also permitted him to make representation to the second respondent claiming employment assistance on compassionate grounds to his dependents. There was a further direction to dispose of that application without delay. Pursuant to that, the first respondent herein applied for employment assistance to his daughter, who is the 2nd respondent herein. When the said application was not favourably considered, a miscellaneous petition was filed in the aforementioned O.A. The same was disposed W.P.(C)No.25813/08 -2- of by Annexure A7 order. The Tribunal directed the respondents therein to take a decision by implementing the orders of the Tribunal within a period of six weeks without fail. Even, thereafter, when no decision was taken, the present Original Application was filed. The same was resisted by the petitioners contending that at present no vacancy set apart for appointment under the compassionate scheme is available. The Tribunal noticed that the second respondent herein was entitled to be considered for appointment from 2000 onwards. But, her claim was not considered for the reason of wrongly treating the retirement of the first respondent as voluntary retirement. The Tribunal observed that the vacancies that were available for her were filled up by others. In the above background, the Tribunal disposed of the present O.A. with the following direction. “.... While their sincere attempt is taken notice of, the fact remaining that the applicant's claim still not being met with, the only order that could be passed at this juncture is that Respondents shall positively consider the case of the applicant for compassionate appointment of Applicant No.2 in the immediately available vacancy under the compassionate appointment quota and limitation if any shall not come in the way in meeting the commitment already made by the respondents. The applicant shall keep in touch with the respondents at periodical intervals in which event, progress of the case be made known to the applicant.” W.P.(C)No.25813/08 -3- Challenging the above direction, this Writ Petition is filed. 2. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners Mr.T.P.M.Ibrahim Khan submitted that the Tribunal proceeded on the footing that there were carried forward vacancies for employment on compassionate grounds. The present direction given is contrary to law and therefore liable to be interfered with. But, we notice that by the present direction, the petitioners were directed to consider the 2nd respondent's case for appointment in the first available vacancy. Injustice has been done to her and the present order is an attempt to undo that. The petitioners are bound by the directions contained in Annexures A3 and A7. Those orders have become final. Therefore, we find nothing wrong with the present order of the CAT, Exhibit P5. Accordingly, the Writ Petition fails and it is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. M.C.HARI RANI, JUDGE. dsn