IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.531 of 2006 ***** Bhagya Narayan Rai, S/O Late Hulas Roy, of Village – Khirkhauan, P.O. Warishpur, P.S. Bhagwanpur, District-Vaishali. …. …. (Applicant) - Petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Post & Telegraph Department, New Delhi. 2. The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Chief Post Master, General Bihar, Patna. 4. The Post Master General, Patna. 5. The Superintendent of Post Office, Vaishali at Hajipur. …. …. (Respondents) - Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. D.P. Chaudhary, Advocate Mr. Satendra Prasad, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Sarvadeo Singh, C.G.C. ------------ P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ------------ Dated, the 15th October, 2008. The petitioner’s father, Hulas Rai, was Overseer in the office of Superintendent of Post Offices, Vaishali (at Hajipur). He died on 15th February, 1999 in harness. Petitioner’s mother sought petitioner’s appointment on compassionate ground by making a representation on 9th March, 1999. The matter was considered by the concerned authorities and the representation was rejected in the year 2000. The petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing original application, which came to be dismissed by the order - 2 - dated 3rd April, 2005. Aggrieved thereby the present writ petition has been filed. 2. That the deceased employee left behind his widow, two sons, namely, the present petitioner and Shatrughan Rai and three daughters is not in dispute. That the three daughters were already married at the time of death of the deceased employee is also not in dispute. That Shatrughan Rai (younger brother of the petitioner) is employee in All India Radio is an admitted position. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner’s mother is receiving pension and they have landed property of 76 decimals including the house. The petitioner’s age at the time of death of his father was 31 years and presently he is 40 years of age is an admitted fact. In the backdrop of these facts, if the petitioner was not given appointment on compassionate ground, the consideration of the matter by the authorities cannot be faulted. It needs no emphasis that appointment on compassionate ground is an exception as it results in bypassing the normal mode of recruitment and the whole idea is to enable the family of the deceased employee having no financial means or insignificant financial means to tide over the financial crisis having occurred because of sudden death of sole earning member of the family. Although, the petitioner has sought to set-up the case that Shatrughan Rai (younger brother of the petitioner) has separated from the family, the said stand does not inspire confidence, as no material has been placed, prima facie, to show that he has been living separately. A bald statement in the affidavit of the - 3 - petitioner’s mother filed before the authorities that petitioner’s younger brother, who is employed in All India Radio has separated from the family, for want of any material in support thereof, does not deserve acceptance. In any case, the family cannot be said to be living in penury. 3. The Tribunal considered the matter thus: - “The applicant has challenged the order dated 25.10.2000 on the ground that the decision taken by the Respondents is arbitrary and against the norms of natural justice. He has stated in the O.A. that he has no other source of income and there is no other claimant to the post to be appointed on compassionate ground, hence a direction may be issued to the Respondents to appoint him on compassionate ground. The law on the compassionate appointment is well settled by now by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that it can neither be sought as a matter of right nor as line of succession. In the instant case the applicant’s case has been considered, rejected by the Circle Relaxation Committee after assessing financial conditions of the family and by seeing assets and liability of the deceased. Compassionate appointment can be granted in other cases of death and is restricted to 5% only and has to be granted only in exceptional circumstances where on sudden death of bread-earner financial conditions of the family becomes so indigent that they need immediate financial assistance in order to get out of the crisis caused by sudden death in the family. The applicant’s mother is getting pension of Rs.1,320/- plus DR and she received DCRG amounting to Rs.95,832/-, leave encashment of Rs.9,483/-. Her second son is also employed in AIR and his basic pay of Rs.4,670/-. Hence, it cannot be said that deceased family is facing indigent condition. By no stretch of imagination it can be said that the order dated 25.10.2000 is unjustified or arbitrary.” 4. We have no justifiable reason to take a view different from that of Tribunal. 5. Writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is - 4 - accordingly dismissed with no order as to cost. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J Pawan/-