IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14077 of 2009 1. BRIJESH KUMAR S/O SHRI SHEO MANI RAM VILLAGE.- GENGHARA, P.O. THAMBAN PURA, P.S.- PHEPHANA, DISTT.- BALIA, U.P. Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI 2. THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER, CENTRAL EXCISE & S.TAX, RANCHI ZONE, PATNA 3. THE COMMISSIONER CENTRAL EXCISE, PATNA 4. THE ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER (P & V) CENTRAL EXCISE, PATNA 5. ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER CENTRAL EXCISE (H), RANCHI ----------- 2 05-11-2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna by the impugned order dated 21-8-2009 rejected the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment after noticing the relevant facts. We have gone through the order of the Tribunal as well as the impugned order of the authorities dated 6-2-2009 (annexure-19). The authorities have extracted the relevant part of the scheme for compassionate appointment. It shows that if the father of the petitioner had been retired on medical grounds prior to attaining the age of 57 years, petitioner could have maintained the claim for compassionate appointment on that ground. From facts it is clear that inspite of efforts being made by the petitioner for subjecting his father to medical examination etc. the authorities found his father fit for service but ultimately on an order obtained from the Central Administrative Tribunal in another proceeding, a medical board was constituted and on the 2 basis of report of the medical board petitioner’s father was retired from service on medical grounds on 01-10-2008. On that date he had attained the age of 58 years eight months and 21 days as finds mentioned in annexure-19. From the relevant facts noticed above, it is clear that claim for compassionate appointment could not be maintained in terms of the scheme for the compassionate appointment and there is no reason to interfere with the impugned orders. The Tribunal in penultimate paragraph of its order has noted certain facts which are disturbing. After observing that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right, the Tribunal has noted the allegation of the respondents/authorities that the applicant had confined his father after kidnapping him and he had taken all measures to ensure that his father was out of service so that he could get compassionate appointment. We find no merit in this application. It is, accordingly, dismissed. BKS/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ.) (Shyam Kishore Sharma, J.)