IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION (S/B) NO. 17 OF 2007 Ravindra Singh .….Petitioner. Versus Union of India and others ..…Respondents. Ms. Neelima Mishra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vikas Pande, Advocate for the respondents. Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. J.S. Khehar, C.J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner claims appointment on compassionate grounds consequent upon the death of his father in harness on 8.12.1994. It would be pertinent to mention that the petitioner’s father was holding the post of “Khalasi” in the Forest Research Institute, Dehradun at the time of his death. In the first instance, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad by filing Original Application No. 274 of 1998. The aforesaid Application was disposed of by the Tribunal vide its order dated 24.5.1999 requiring the competent authority to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the aforesaid order. 2. Consequent upon the directions issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal, the Forest Research Institute, Dehradun passed an order dated 23.8.1999, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds. 3. In order to assail the order passed by the Forest Research Institute, Dehradun dated 23.8.1999, the petitioner again approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad by filing Original Application No. 1324 of 1999. The aforesaid Application was disposed of by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad vide its order dated 5.11.1999 requiring the competent authority to reconsider the claim of the petitioner by 2 passing a well-reasoned speaking order within three months from the date of communication of the aforesaid order. 4. Consequent upon the direction issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal, the Forest Research Institute, Dehradun passed an order dated 21.2.2000, whereby the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds was declined. 5. In order to assail the order passed by the Forest Research Institute, Dehradun dated 21.2.2000, the petitioner again approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad by filing Original Application No. 315 of 2000. The aforesaid Application filed by the petitioner was, however, dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal on 12.4.2002. 6. The instant Writ Petition has been filed at the hands of the petitioner so as to assail the order dated 12.4.2002, whereby Original Application No. 315 of 2000 had been dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal declining the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds. 7. During the course of hearing of the instant Writ Petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner acknowledges that the father of the petitioner died as far back as on 8.12.1994. It is also acknowledged, that he was holding the post of Khalasi at the time of his death in the Forest Research Institute, Dehradun. It is, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the father of the petitioner having died in harness, the petitioner should have been considered for appointment on compassionate grounds and should have been granted the aforesaid benefit. 8. The contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is vehemently opposed by the learned counsel for the respondents by asserting, that the petitioner was part of the family comprising of four brothers and two sisters. The petitioner was the youngest of the four brothers. It is asserted, that all the other three brothers of the petitioner were duly employed in State/Central Government employment at the time of death of the petitioner’s father on 8.12.1994. It is also contended, that the mother of the petitioner, 3 besides having been released monetary benefits in the nature of gratuity, provident fund, insurance fund, leave encashment, etc. was also being paid monthly pension of Rs. 1,900/-. Accordingly, it is contended, that it cannot be concluded that the financial circumstances of the family of the deceased were such, that required the petitioner to be granted appointment on compassionate grounds. In addition to the aforesaid, it is pointed out, that the family of the deceased owns a five-room house besides being in occupation of five bighas land on patta. It is pointed out, that a cumulative consideration of the financial position of the petitioner reveals that it is not as if on account of financial constraints, he would not be able to meet his needs of bread and butter. According to the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents, if appointment on compassionate grounds is granted to the petitioner, others in much harsher financial circumstances would be deprived of the same. 9. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner did not dispute the factual position brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the respondents. 10. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the financial position of the petitioner, as also, members of the family of the deceased, we are of the view that the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds is wholly misconceived. The instant Writ Petition is, therefore, liable to be dismissed, as we find no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad disposing of Original Application No. 315 of 2000 vide an order dated 12.4.2002. 11. The instant Writ Petition is dismissed accordingly. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C.J.) 12.07.2010 Avneet