IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.R.RAMAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.S.GOPINATHAN FRIDAY, THE 22ND JANUARY 2010 / 2ND MAGHA 1931 WP(C).No. 36021 of 2009(S) -------------------------- OA.97/2009 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS, NEW DELHI. 2. CHIEF GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM, BSNL, KERALA CIRCLE, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. PRINCIPAL GENERAL MANAGER (A&E), BSNL, KOTTAYAM. 4. ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (ADMN), BSNL, KOTTAYAM. 5. SUB-DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, PHONES, BSNL, CHANGANASSERY. BY ADV. SRI.K.KESAVANKUTTY, SC, BSNL RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. RESHMI K.R., KEECHERIL HOUSE, MALAKUNNAM P.O., CHANGANASSERY, KOTTAYAM DISTRICT. 2. SINDHU K.P.,GROUP-D, O.P.SECTION, OFFICE OF THE PGMTG (O), KOTTAYAM. 3. SHAILAJA G.NAIR, GROUP-D, OFFICE OF THE SD ENGINEER (INDOOR), GANDHI NAGAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/01/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: P.R.RAMAN & P.S.GOPINATHAN, JJ. ------------------------------- W.P.(C) No.36021 of 2009 ------------------------------- Dated this the 22nd day of January, 2010 J U D G M E N T Raman, J. Respondents in O.A.No.97 of 2009 aggrieved by the Order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal has preferred this Writ Petition. 2. The applicant/first respondent herein approached the Tribunal as against the denial of compassionate appointment, on the death of her father while in service. The applicant was included in the waiting list as Serial No.7. But the juniors of the applicant were given compassionate appointment. The only ground on which the applicant's claim was not duly considered for appointment is that she got married on 24.9.2007. According to the petitioners, married daughter is not a dependent entitled for compassionate appointment. WP.(C) No.36021 of 2009 2 3. We have gone through the scheme. There is no restriction as is now contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners. As per the definition of the term “dependent” under the scheme, Spouse/Son/Daughter are wholly dependent. A daughter after marriage does not cease to be a daughter. If the Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited wants to restrict the said benefit only to the unmarried daughter, nothing prevents the authorities from amending the scheme accordingly. In terms of the scheme now in force, there is no reason to reject the appointment of the first respondent. 4. It was then contended that compassionate appointment is limited to 5% of vacancy, the claim, if any, of the applicant could be considered only to those vacancies. Admittedly, as against 5% claim, if the applicant's case was considered according to the seniority, she would have been appointed. But she was not given appointment for the reasons already stated above, preferring a junior for appointment. Therefore, there is no reason to deny the appointment to the WP.(C) No.36021 of 2009 3 first respondent and to rectify the mistake. In such circumstances, we do not find any good ground to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. P.R.RAMAN, JUDGE P.S.GOPINATHAN, JUDGE nj.