C.W.P.No.16483 of 2002 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.16483 of 2002 Date of Decision : 13.02.2008 Kumar Anubhav .....Petitioner versus Union of India and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL Present : Shri I.D.Singla, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Mahesh Dheer, Advocate for the respondents. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? JUDGMENT HEMANT GUPTA, J. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as the `Tribunal') dated 12.8.2002 whereby the application filed by the petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate ground was declined. The father of the petitioner Shri Narinder Kumar working as Sorting Assistant with the Railway Mail Service, Haryana Division, Ambala, died on 28.6.1999 leaving behind his widow, one daughter and two sons. The mother of the petitioner made an application for appointment of the petitioner, her son, on compassionate ground on 8.10.1999. Such claim of the petitioner was rejected by the Competent Authority vide order dated C.W.P.No.16483 of 2002 2 20.9.2001, Annexure A-1, The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the Tribunal and the learned Tribunal dismissed the application of the petitioner vide order dated 12.8.2002. It has been pointed out in the order Annexure A-1 that the widow was paid terminal benefits amounting to Rs.3,42,681/- and family pension of Rs.2625/- + Dearness Allowance at the current rate of 43% at that time. It has been pointed out that the widow has her own house to live in the family consists of two sons and a daughter. Still, according to the Planning Commission, poverty line criteria for a family of 5 members is that of the income below Rs.1767.20. Whereas in this case, the family consists of 4 members and the widow is getting family pension and Dearness Allowance amounting to Rs.3753/- per month which amount is more than the initial pay of Rs.3050/- being given by the Government as a model employer to the postman and that such amount is sufficient to sustain the family. The aforesaid facts stated in the order, could not be disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, it has been contended that three persons have been given the appointment on compassionate ground. Reference has been made to Annexure R-1 produced before the learned Tribunal, showing the consideration of claim of the other applicants for compassionate appointment. From the perusal of Annexure R-1, it transpires that the families all the three deceased employes of the respondents have got terminal benefits much less to that what has been given to the mother of the petitioner. The maximum terminal benefits granted to one of the family of C.W.P.No.16483 of 2002 3 the deceased employee is Rs.1,25,307/- which is much less than the amount of Rs.3,43,681/- granted to the mother of the petitioner. Still further, the maximum amount of pension given to one of the family of the aforesaid deceased employee is Rs.1982 as against the amount of Rs.2625/- excluding Dearness Allowance granted to the mother of the petitioner. Thus, the position of the family of the petitioner cannot be said to be in extreme financial distress which may warrant compassionate appointment of the petitioner. Therefore, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the order dated 12.8.2002, passed by the Tribunal declining the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, which may warrant interference of this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The writ petition stands dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 13-02-2008 (MOHINDER PAL) *mohinder JUDGE