IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.SURENDRA MOHAN FRIDAY, THE 24TH SEPTEMBER 2010 / 2ND ASWINA 1932 OP (CAT).No. 45 of 2010(S) -------------------------- OA.161/2009 of CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,ERNAKULAM BENCH .................... PETITIONERS ------------------------------- 1. INDIAN COUNCIL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, KRISHI BHAVAN, NEW DELHI. 2. DIRECTOR, CENTRAL PLANTATION CROPS RESEARCH INSTITUTE, KUDULU, KASARAGOD. BY ADV. SRI.VIVEK VARGHESE P.J. SRI.VARUGHESE M EASO SRI.P.G.GOPALAKRISHNAN UNNITHAN SMT.MANEESHA KUMAR RESPONDENTS: --------------- 1. SHRI.ROSHIN R MOHAN, S/O.LATE SHRI K.K.RAJAMOHAN, 786, FATHIMA COTTAGE, ERIYAL, P.O.KUDULU, KASARAGOD DIST. 2. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, ERNAKULAM BENCH, KALOOR, COCHIN-682 017. THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24/09/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR & K.SURENDRA MOHAN, JJ. .................................................................... O.P.(CAT) No.45 of 2010 .................................................................... Dated this the 24th day of September, 2010. JUDGMENT Ramachandran Nair, J. Heard counsel for the petitioners. On going through the order impugned which is the order issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal upholding the claim of entitlement of the first respondent for employment under compassionate grounds and after hearing the counsel for the petitioner, we do not find any scope for interference with the C.A.T's. order because the main ground on which petitioners declined compassionate employment to first respondent who is otherwise eligible is that he did not disclose the paltry income obtained by his widowed mother in the employment as Aya in an Anganwadi which is a menial job fetching very paltry income for first respondent's mother. The Tribunal found that there is no suppression of any material fact as alleged by the petitioners warranting denial of employment under the compassionate scheme to the first respondent. 2 We do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the C.A.T. Consequently O.P.(CAT) is dismissed. C.N.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR Judge K.SURENDRA MOHAN Judge pms