IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CASE NO.: CWP No.18832-CAT of 2002 DATE OF DECISION : 3rd March,2009 Union of India and others .......Petitioners versus Raj Kumar and others ......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIRMALJIT KAUR. PRESENT: None for the petitioners. Mr.Pawan Kumar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Swapan Shorey, Advocate for the respondents. NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. The petitioners herein have assailed the order dated 28-02-2002 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal vide which the present petitioners have been directed to offer compassionate appointment to respondent No.1 against first vacancy on the post of EDDA (Extra Departmental Delivery Agent). As per the facts of the present case, the father of respondent No.1, who was Group `D' employee in Karnal Head Post Office in the department of the petitioner, retired on medical grounds. The Circle Relaxation Committee rejected the case of respondent No.1 for compassionate appointment. The same was communicated to respondent No.1 vide letter dated 28-09-2001. The respondent No.1 filed O.A seeking CWP No.18832-CAT of 2002 -2- quashing of the order dated 28-09-2001 passed by the Circle Relaxation Committee. The O.A was allowed by the Central Administrative Tribunal vide order dated 28-02-2002 by giving a direction to the petitioner- Department to offer compassionate appointment to respondent No.1 against first vacancy on the post of EDDA. The present petition has, therefore, been filed against the said order of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The said order of the Central Administrative Tribunal has been challenged, mainly on the ground that the Tribunal cannot direct for any appointment on compassionate grounds. Secondly, no relief could have been granted to the respondent in view of the fixed number of vacancies available within 5% of the direct recruitment quota, whereas such vacancies already stood filled. Lastly, there were in all 61 applications and the respondent could not have been preferred over all those candidates. After carefully perusing the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, we find that, in fact, three persons were given compassionate appointment in preference to the respondent. The merits of the three candidates have been discussed in detail. After comparison of the merits of these candidates, a finding has been recorded that the petitioners had not correctly assessed the extent of indignation faced by the family of the respondent which is certainly more than those of the other candidates. He was found to be more deserving on account of the fact that he was an ex-employee and had been released from service on account of medical grounds. He was not even in receipt of the disability pension. One son was married who also had four children to support, the second so i.e. the CWP No.18832-CAT of 2002 -3- respondent was un-employed and had two other brothers and sisters who were younger to him who he was required to support. He himself was a married person with two children to support. They were a large family with no means to support themselves. We are also informed by the learned counsel for respondent No.2 that in pursuance to the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, respondent was given appointment as EDDA on 24-01-2003. Ever since, he is working on the said job. There is nothing on record to show that the findings arrived at by the Tribunal are incorrect. Hence, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) JUDGE (ASHUTOSH MOHUNTA) JUDGE March 03, 2009 gurpreet