IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.9230 of 2008 BASANTI UPADHYAY & ANR Versus THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Shailendra Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. J.P. Karn, AAG IX ------ P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ------- Dated, the 17th July, 2008 The unsuccessful original applicants have filed this writ petition putting in issue the legality and correctness of the order dated 14th September, 2007 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna. 2. That, an appointment on compassionate ground is an exception to the ordinary mode of recruitment is beyond doubt. The purpose of according appointment on compassionate ground is to enable the dependents of the sole earning member having died in harness to tide over the financial crisis if by such death they have been put in economic distress. It is in this context that as per the scheme framed by the Government of India, diverse aspects are required to be considered while considering the appointment on compassionate ground. The eligibility for appointment is that families should deserve to be provided immediate succor. 2 3. It is not in dispute that Ramashish Upadhyaya (husband of first petitioner and father of second petitioner) was holding the office of the Senior Auditor in the office of Principal Accountant General (Audit & Account), Bihar. It is also not in dispute that he had put in many years of service . As a matter of fact, on the date of death, he had hardly eight months left for his retirement. The deceased employee had left behind him three sons and two daughters. His two sons along with the application gave an affidavit that they have been living separately. Obviously, they must have their own independent income from independent source. Besides that the other material that has come on record, clearly shows that the family was not in financial distress and did not deserve any compassionate appointment under the scheme framed by the Central Government. 4. The judgment cited by the counsel for the petitioners has no application to the facts of the case. The consideration of the matter by the Central Administrative Tribunal does not suffer from any legal flaw justifying any interference by us in high prerogative writ jurisdiction. 5. Writ petition is dismissed accordingly. R.M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J Anil/