IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13842 of 2010 1. THE UNION OF INDIA through the Comproller and Auditor General, 10, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi. 2. The Accountant General, (A & E), Birchand Patel Path, Bihar, Patna-1, 3. The Accountant General (A & E), Jharkhand, Ranchi, 4. The Senior Accounts Officer, (Admn), Birchand Patel Path, Bihar, Patna-1, … Petitioners Versus 1. SHOBHA SINHA wife of late Mithilesh Kumar Sinha, resident of village East Ram Krishna Nagar, P.S. Dhelwa, P.S. Ram Krishna Nagar, Patna, 2. Prem Kumar son of late Mithilesh Kumar Sinha, resident of village East Ram Krishna Nagar, P.S. Dhelwa, P.S. Ram Krishna Nagar, Patna, …. Respondents For the Petitioners: Mr. Madhuresh Prasad, Advocate For the Respondents: M/s Pushkar Narain Shahi and Sanjiv Krishna Bariar, Advocates ----------- 5 10.05.2011 Heard the parties. By the impugned order dated 16th March, 2010, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna has allowed O.A. No. 509 of 2008, preferred by the respondents and directed the petitioners to consider the case of the applicants (respondents herein) for compassionate appointment of applicant no. 2 in view of the scheme for compassionate appointment in various letters of the Department of Personnel and Training, such as, letter dated 09.10.1998 and the clarifications made by the Headquarter 2 in circular dated 09.03.2009. On behalf of the petitioners, it has been submitted that the relevant circular, which prevented the authorities from granting relief to the respondents, was circular dated 19.02.2003, in which specific parameters have been laid down for judging financial indigence of a family. It is the case of the petitioners that since the deceased employee belonged to Class “C” and the total terminal benefits paid to the family exceeded rupees three lacs, the case of the respondents could not be considered unless in terms of the circular dated 19.02.2003 the head of the Department found the case to be very deserving with extenuating circumstances and recommended the case of the respondents to the headquarters for relaxation of the monetary limit from the Deputy Comptroller and Auditor General of India. It has been shown that by Annexure A/9 respondent no. 1 was communicated the fact that her claim for compassionate appointment of her son did not find favour even at the higher level. Annexure A/9 has been issued by the Assistant Comptroller and Auditor General of India and appears to be a communication from the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India dated 14.11.2007. 3 On behalf of the respondents, it has been pointed out that the authorities have in the past relaxed the monetary limit fixed by the circular dated 19th February, 2003, as appears from the pleadings and in this particular case, if the report available in the files, which has been annexed as Annexure R/3 to the counter affidavit, is taken into consideration, a strong case is made out for relaxing the case because the said report dated 29.09.2004 made by the Senior Accounts Officer, Bihar, Patna, discloses the pitiable condition of the family of the respondents and the expenses, which they had incurred on account of treatment of the deceased employee, who was suffering from kidney problem for a considerable period before his death and was also dependent on dialysis. The report further discloses that the widow of the deceased employee, i.e. respondent no. 1, is also bed-ridden due to paralysis since February 2003 and out of three sons of the deceased employee, two were still pursuing their studies and the third one had to leave study to take care of his mother and father. In our view, the direction given by the Tribunal for reconsidering the case of the applicants (respondents herein) requires no interference. We clarify that the only 4 hurdle in the way of compassionate appointment appears to be the financial limit in circular dated 19.02.2003, but since the same has been relaxed in other cases, the authorities would be well advised to consider granting relaxation in the case of the applicants also in view of the facts noted above, particularly in Annexure R/3 to the counter affidavit. In case the authorities still decide against the applicants, they will be obliged to indicate the reasons for the same atleast in brief. It is expected that the required consideration/decision will be made within three months. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of. SC (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)