ff}'!^ "'•\° />''•' HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH: HON'BLE SHRIDHIRENDRA MISHRA & HbN'BLESHRIR.N.CHANDRAKAR.JJ W.P.fSl N0.5^5 OF 2008 PETITIONER Ravikant Yadu VERSUS RESPONDENTS Union oflndia and others. ORDER FOR CONSIDERATION MOWBLE SHRI R.N. CHANDRAKAR. j ^3 a-C(^t_^e-. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Sd/- R-N.Chandrakar Judge ^ POST FQR QRDER ON 1^ JUNE. 2009 Sd/- DhirendraMistara >c, Judge - <fl». ^r,,--««,, ? ".. F ^^R^^ii l¥ftKa?a ''l^. ^!-" ••X?3S|^3 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIV1SION BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI DHIRENDRA MISHRA & HON'BLE SHRI R.N.CHANDRAKAR. JJ W.P-fSl N0.5495 OF 2008 PETITIONER Ravikant Yadu, S/o ShriKanhaiya Lal Yadu, Aged about 24 years, R/o Opposite Bajrang Mandir, Mahamaipara, Raipur, P.0., Raipur, Distt. Raipur (CG) RESPONDENTS VERSUS 1. 2. 4. 5. Union of India, represenfed through the Secretary, Ministry of Communication, DOP, Govt. of tndia, New Dethi. The Secretary, Govt. of India, lyiinistryof Communication, DOP, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi. Director General (PersonaQ, Deptt. of Posts, Sanchar Bhawan, New Delhi. Chief Postmaster General, CG Circte, Raipur (CG) Asstt. Director (Staff), O/o. CPMG, CG Circle, Raipur (CG) Presenh Mrs. Fouzia Mirza, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, leamed counsel for the respondents. ORDER (Passedon |9J June, 2009) The foltowing order of the Court was passed by Dhirendra Mishra, J:- ^w.1. By this petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 7th Mareh, 2008 (Annexure P/3) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench at Jabalpur O" short "Tribunal") and has further prayed for directlon tothe respondent authorities to consider his case for compassionate appointment afresh. [, M i i i - xsa BiS sss ssi ^'s^s^!S^S^£^SsS,^f^^^ fBssssr-SiisssiiassSSSs^^lK^ ^w. 2. Briefly stated, case of the peh'tioner is that his father Late Kanhaiya Lal Yadu was posted as Postman in the respondents' department. However, he took invalid retirement on 15 July, 2002 due to severe attack of paralysis. The petitioner applied for special compassionate appointment being a son of the govemment servant, who retired on medical ground, to the Chief Post Master General, however, his application was rejected vide order dated 10th February, 2005 (Annexure P/2). Thereafter, the petitioner flled original application before the Tribunal and prayed for direction to reconsider his case for compassionate appointment by quashing the order of Annexure P/2. However, the same was rejected by the Tribunal vide impugned order dated 7th Mareh, 2008 of Annexure P/3. 3. Leamed counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per policy of the Govt. of India of Annexure P/1, compassionate appointment is to be provided to a son of the government servant retired on medical grounds if the family is indigent and deserves immediate assistance to relieve from financial destitution. Since the petitioner belongs to an indigent family and he was eligible for compassionate appointment, he was entitled for compassionate appointment as per policy of Annexure P/1, however, the same was illegally rejected on the ground that terminal benefit of Rs.1,86.830/- was granted to the Tamily of the petitioner and therefore, he is not an indigent person. Referring to Clause 6(b) of the Instructions of Govt. of India of Annexure P/1, it was argued that from the order of rejection of the Tribunal, it would be evident that the petitioner was also found to be in an indigent condition, however, he could not be offered appointment for want of sufficient vacancy. In these circumstances, it was incumbent upon ttie Tespondents to take up the matter with other Ministries/Department/OfRces of the Govt. of India for compassionate 'KS- li!113Iil:fc!inii ''iSsS fSS" '^^-l• v^s ^i[A ^i^ gi^-S^ '&^s^ ft^;^'^ 'ss.sWM ^^ fft^i s^a^s^ss^^^i ?s) i/;:B3 ^w. appointment. However, his application was rejected outright. In any case, his application should have been kept pending for a period of one year with recommendation for appointment on compassionate ground, ifthe vacancy Is available in this period. 4. On the other hand, Shri Pradhan, learned counsel for the respondente submitted that the case of ttie petitioner for compassionate appointment was considered by the C.R.C. in its meeting dated 14 January, 2005, however, his case was not found deserving amongst 44 cases, which were considered. Looking to the financial condttion of the family of the petitioner, his case was not found warranting extension of one more year as numerous more deserving cases were there, who were in more indigent cond'rtion. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parUes and perused the materiat available on record. 6. The competent authority has considered the entire norms specified under OMs issued by the Govt. of India in respect of compassionate appointment. Refemng to various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it has been held by ttie Tribunal that compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule that appointment to public office should be made onthe basis of competitive merits; objective findings of the statutory authority regarding entitlement to compassionate appointment arrived at on apprectation of full fecte, should not be disturbed, and rejected ttie original application of the petitioner with the observation that his case has objectively been considered by the respondente. The competitive authority has considered the enflre norms specified under the OMs issued by the Govt. of India in respectof compassionate appointment. ' I. % ^s. 7. From perusal of the order of Annexure P/2, whereby peUtioner's application for compassionate appointment has been rejected, it is evident that the application has been rejected by the competent authority with an observation that only one post is available for compassionate appointment in the department Eind family of the petitioner was not found in indigent condition as compared to all other cases as per prescribed norms of e department. Only those dependants of the employees are to be given appointment on compassionate basis, who died in harness retired on medical grounds thereby leaving their family in penury and without any means of Ih/elihood, to retieve the family of the government servant concerned from financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. However, no such circumstances exist in the caseof flie petitioner and he was not found eligible for compassionateappointmentas per norms ofthe department. 8. In view of the reasons assigned by the C.R.C. for rejecting the application for compassionate appointment ofthe pefltioner, weare of the opinion that application of the petitioner was considered by the committee objectively in the light of guklelines mentioned in the Instructions of Annexure P/1. The Tribunal has rightty held that the petitioner's case was consldered by the competent authority in an objective manner and the same does not call for any interference. We are in agreement with the findings recorded by the Tribunal. There is no substance in the instant petition, the same deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly, dismissed. 9. No order as to costs Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge Sd/- Dhu-endra Mishra