IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN TUESDAY, THE 25TH MAY 2010 / 4TH JYAISHTA 1932 WP(C).NO. 26859 OF 2009(S) -------------------------- {OA.588/2008 OF CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH} .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,MINISTRY OF POSTAL & TELECOMMUNICATION, NEW DELHI. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF POST, DAK BHAVAN, NEW DELHI 110001 3. THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF POST, KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM 695 033. BY ADV. SRI.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY, CGC RESPONDENT(S): --------------- SYAM KRISHNA MUKKOLAKKAL, NEDUMANGAD PO, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. ADV. SMT.S.KARTHIKA SRI.M.S.UNNIKRISHNAN SRI.M.R.ANISON SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 25/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. --------------------------------------- W.P.(C)No.26859 of 2009 --------------------------------------- Dated this the 25th day of May, 2010 JUDGMENT THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, J. The respondent is the unfortunate heir of a postman, who died in harness. The Circle Relaxation Committee {for short “CRC”} took the view that he is not entitled to compassionate appointment, on the ground that the widow of late official is drawing family pension. We have necessarily to ignore the further statement of the CRC that “keeping in view the assets and liabilities of the family, the request cannot be recommended”. The CRC has not made any actual assessment of the assets and liabilities of the family, which could have denuded the applicant of the entitlement for compassionate appointment. The CRC's decision was not interfered with by the appellate authority. The Tribunal set aside the decision of the appellate authority and directed reconsideration by the appellate authority. 2. The Department has filed this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution W.P.(C)No.26859 of 2009 :: 2 :: of India, essentially pointing out that the so called appellate authority is not an appellate authority and there is no such authority to sit in appeal over the decision of the CRC. 3. Though this is a technical argument on the question of jurisdiction, having perused the facts, we are of the firm view that the decision of the CRC, as noted above, resulting in the refusal of compassionate appointment, is totally perverse, unreasonable, illegal, capricious and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. On the facts and circumstances, it also violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, being a matter relating to compassionate appointment. 4. We may note that the family pension granted to the officer's family is Rs.2025/- upto 12.10.2010, which hereafter gets reduced to Rs.1,275/-. Obviously, there was no material to reject the claim for compassionate appointment on a ground referable to the total income of the family. We also notice that the facts noticed by W.P.(C)No.26859 of 2009 :: 3 :: the Tribunal viz., that the deceased officer had availed a housing loan and had put up a home in a 5 cents plot and the DCRG amount was adjusted against that loan etc., are not disputed by the official respondents. Under such circumstances, we are of the considered view that the Central Administrative Tribunal, having found that the decision of the CRC itself was perverse, ought to have directed compassionate appointment to be given to the petitioner, rather than to remit the matter to the appellate authority. We take the aforesaid view in the back drop of the situation that the Department assails the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal on the only ground that he makes has been remitted to an incompetent authority. There is no challenge to the findings on facts. Nothing stood in the way of the Central Administrative Tribunal allowing the respondent's application in toto. In our considered view, ends of justice will not be met, if the impugned order on facts is upheld and relief moulded accordingly. W.P.(C)No.26859 of 2009 :: 4 :: 5. Under such circumstances, to do complete justice and to effectuate the fundamental rights of the applicant, we quash the impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal to the extent it proceeds to remit the matter to the “appellate authority” over CRC. We direct that the original application before the Tribunal will stand allowed in toto, thereby enabling the applicant to get compassionate appointment, following this judgment, under the Compassionate Appointment Scheme. Let this be given effect to within two months from now. Writ petition is ordered as above. Sd/- (THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN) JUDGE Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE sk/ //true copy// P.S. to Judge.