AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
V.M. Sahai, J.—We have heard Mr. S.H. Bhatt, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner.
This petition has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 09.03.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad in O.A. No. 281 of 2010 with MA No. 331 of 2010 whereby the Tribunal rejected the original application filed by the Petitioner which was filed for challenging the order dated 25.07.2008 whereby the application of the Petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected.
The Tribunal in the impugned judgment has recorded a finding in paragraph 5 and 6 which is extracted below:
From the record, it is evident that the case of the applicant was considered along with other applicants seeking compassionate appointments and on the basis of guidelines issued by the Government of India, the cases were considered as per the weightage point system. In his case, total benefits with him were found to be Rs. 80,569/-and liabilities to the tune of Rs. 12,402/-. The total points which he got disentitled him for shortlisting as his case fell within the per capita income of Rs. 3,220.70/-per month and it was more than the maximum limit of Rs. 2500/-per month. The documents placed on record are very clear and the consideration made by the competent authority are obviously fair. There appears No. mistake in that and the objectivity test satisfies the need. Besides one of the co-applicant, challenging the proceedings traveled to the High Court in SCA No. 10561/2008 wherein Hon''ble High Court also in consideration of the same documents found that they were fair enough and therefore did not interfere. One more co-applicant, who was aggrieved came to this Tribunal with OA 155/2010 and therein also the same proceedings were examined and found to be above reproach.
Besides, the very purpose of giving compassionate appointment is to give opportunity to the bereaved family to tide over financial difficulties which fall upon them due to the death of earning member of the family. Due to such death, there being immediate loss of earning, therefore the family is left to suffer financial hardship. In cases, where the family survived for a long time, as is the case at hand, and successfully faced and overcome the financial difficulties coming to them due to such an event, there is No. justification for exercise of our jurisdiction. In this connection, a respectful reference may be made to 2009 (3) SLJ SC 289 . There is another guideline in this respect available in Smt. Mumtaz Yunus Mulani Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others, and State of Jammu & Kashmir and Others Vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir,
From the aforesaid finding of the Tribunal, it is clear that the financial condition of the Petitioner family is good and since the family is drawing family pension and has got sufficient amount after the death of the deceased employee, therefore, there is No. financial hardship in the family. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal or by the Respondents. This writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.