IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR MONDAY, THE 1ST JUNE 2009 / 11TH JYAISHTA 1931 WP(C).No. 12451 of 2009(S) -------------------------- OA.380/2007 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL, KERALA CIRCLE, TRIVANDRUM. 2. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES, TIRUR DIVISION, TIRUR. 3. THE INSPECTOR OF POSTS, PONNANI SUB DIVISION, PONNANI. BY ADV. SRI.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR GENERAL SRI.THYPARAMBIL THOMAS THOMAS RESPONDENT: APPLICANT ------------------------ N.G.VIGEESH, S/O.E.V.GOPINATHAN, GRAMIN DAK SEVAK MAIL DELIVERER, KALADI SO, TIRUR DIVISION, TIRUR, RESIDING AT ELLATHU VALAPPIL HOUSE, MUDUR PO, VATTAMKULAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 01/06/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR & C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JJ. ----------------------------------------- W.P.(C) NO. 12451 OF 2009-S ----------------------------------------- Dated 1st June, 2009. JUDGMENT Balakrishnan Nair, J. The respondents in O.A.No.380/2007 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench are the writ petitioners. The respondent herein was the applicant. The applicant was the dependent of an E.D employee, invalidated out from service on medical grounds. The applicant's claim for appointment under the compassionate appointment scheme was not considered, relying on a communication of the Ministry of Communication dated 29.5.1992, stating that it would not be desirable to extend the scope for compassionate appointments to cover the dependents/near relatives of the invalidated EDAs. It is common case that the said communication has already been quashed by the Full Bench of the C.A.T., by order dated 8.11.2001 in O.A.No.220/1998. So, the claim of the applicant was not considered, relying on an order, which was no longer in force. It is also relevant to note that the said decision of the Full Bench of the Tribunal has already been upheld by this Court. In view of the above WPC 12451/2009 2 position, the Tribunal found that non-consideration of the claim of the applicant was unjustified and therefore, the O.A was allowed by Ext.P3 order dated 29.8.2008, directing the competent authority among the writ petitioners to consider the claim of the respondent for appointment on compassionate grounds. The said order is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 2. We heard Sri.Thyparambil Thomas Thomas, on behalf of Sri.P.Parameswaran Nair, Assistant Solicitor General. Since the claim of the respondent was rejected, relying on a communication of the Ministry of Communications, which is already quashed by the C.A.T., the said decision is vitiated for taking into account irrelevant matters. Therefore, the C.A.T has rightly interfered with it. We find that no ground has been made out, warranting interference with the impugned order Ext.P3. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. C.T.RAVIKUMAR, JUDGE. nm/