IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.BASHEER & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.Q.BARKATH ALI MONDAY, THE 11TH APRIL 2011 / 21ST CHAITHRA 1933 O.P.(CAT).No. 1364 of 2011 (S) --------------------------------------------- OA.182/2008 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER: --------------------- K.J.SREEJITH,S/O.LATE M.KARUNAKARAN, PLAVILA PUTHEN VEEDU, VENPAKAL, ARALUMMOOD, TRIVANDRUM. BY ADV. SRI.K.VIDYASAGAR SRI.S.NIDHEESH RESPONDENTS: -------------------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA,REP.BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, DAK BHAVAN, NEW DELHI 110 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL,DEPARTMENT OF POSTS NEW DELHI. 3. THE CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL, KERALA CIRCLE. TRIVANDRUM - 695 033. ADV. SRI.P.M.M.NAJEEB KHAN, ADDL.CGSC FOR R1-4 THIS O.P.(CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 11/04/2011, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: A.K.BASHEER & P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JJ. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - O.P.(CAT)No.1364 OF 2011 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 11th day of April 2011 JUDGMENT Basheer, J. This original petition is directed against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing the original application filed by the petitioner holding that his claim for compassionate appointment is not sustainable in view of the decision taken by the Circle Relaxation Committee way back in the year 1998 itself. 2. Relevant facts which are necessary for disposal of this original petition may be briefly noticed. 3. Petitioner's father died in harness in September 1996 while he was working as a Group-D employee in the Department of Posts. Admittedly, the widow of the deceased had filed a representation before the Department seeking appointment of the petitioner in a suitable post on compassionate grounds. At the time of the death of his father, petitioner was aged 23 years. The Circle Relaxation Committee had considered the case of the petitioner in terms of the rules governing compassionate appointments. The Committee found that petitioner's case did not fall within the parameters laid down by the Department and accordingly his claim was rejected in the year 1998 itself. 4. But it appears that petitioner's mother had submitted several representations thereafter before the Department. In one of the O.P.(CAT)No.1364 OF 2011 :: 2 :: communications, she informed the Department that her two major daughters had no objection in giving employment to the petitioner on compassionate ground. It is seen from the records that one of those representations was referred to the Director General of Posts for consideration in 2005. 5. But since no reply was received from the said authority, the present original application was filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal praying for issue of an appropriate direction to the Department to consider and pass orders on the representation received from the petitioner in 2005. There was a further prayer to issue a direction to the authorities to take a decision on four other similar representations filed by the petitioner and his mother starting from 1996 till 1998. 6. The Department contented before the Tribunal that the Circle Relaxation Committee had rejected the claim for compassionate appointment made by the petitioner, since it was found that there was no merit in his case. The Tribunal, after considering the rival contentions of the parties, held that the stand taken by the Department cannot be faulted and accordingly the original application was dismissed. 7. It appears that petitioner had filed a review petition before the Tribunal with a delay of more than 11 months. The review petition was also dismissed by the Tribunal noticing that there was no error apparent on the face of the record and that the attempt of the review petitioner was O.P.(CAT)No.1364 OF 2011 :: 3 :: only to persuade the Tribunal to rehear the case on its merit. 8. Sri.C.S.Manilal, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the question whether the petitioner was entitled to get compassionate appointment had to be necessarily considered by the appointing authority itself, and not by the Circle Relaxation Committee. He points out that the Director General had not taken a decision so far on the representation forwarded to him. He therefore contends that so long as the appointing authority has not considered the case of the petitioners on its merit, the Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the original application on the ground that the Circle Relaxation Committee had already taken a decision in the matter way back in the year 1998. 9. We are afraid the above contention is wholly untenable and misconceived. Petitioner does not have a case that the Circle Relaxation Committee had not considered the case of the petitioner in tune with the parameters governing such appointments. Circle Relaxation Committee has been formed in the circle to deal with such matters. It is also not in dispute that these parameters have been laid down to have a uniform policy and methodology in such appointments. So long as the petitioner has not questioned the validity of the constitution of such Relaxation Committees and also since the petitioner does not have a case that the Relaxation Committee had taken a decision in violation of the norms prescribed for such appointments, we do not find any merit in the O.P.(CAT)No.1364 OF 2011 :: 4 :: contention raised by the petitioner in this regard. 10. In this context, it may also be noticed that at the time of the death of the petitioner's father, the widow viz. the mother of the petitioner, was working as a teacher in a Primary School. The three children of the deceased employee were majors - petitioner being 23 and his two sisters being 21 years at the time of death. The claim made by the petitioner was considered by the Circle Relaxation Committee on its merit and it was found by the committee that the family of the deceased employee did not come within the parameters, enabling it to get the benefit of compassionate appointment. 11. The present original application was filed before the Tribunal 12 years after the death of the employee. There is absolutely no explanation for the delay apart from bald statement that various representations were being sent from time to time. We are unable to accept the above explanation. In any view of the matter, we do not find any error or illegality in the view taken by the Tribunal. The original petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. A.K.BASHEER, JUDGE P.Q.BARKATH ALI, JUDGE jes