AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
I.M. Quddusi, J.—This writ petition has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 31st October, 2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in Original Application No. 444 of 1999 dismissing the original application. Further the Petitioner has prayed for a direction to opposite party Nos. 1 to 3 to provide him compassionate appointment.
The aforesaid Original Application was filed by the Petitioner for compassionate appointment being the son of Ex-Postman namely Narasingha Mohapatra.
The facts of the case are that the Petitioner''s father was working as Postman. But he was compulsorily retired in the year 1987 vide order dated 23.6.1988. The charge against him was that he was working as Postman at Bhubaneswar G.P.O. from 9.3.1986 to 2.5.1986 and during that period he did not deliver the letters sent for delivery to the members of Muslim Community of his beat and openly declared in the office that he would set fire to the letters addressed to the Muslim Community. Subsequently an inquiry was held against him, but he did not attend the inquiry and remained absent without seeking any time resulting which the charges were proved and he was compulsorily retired. It was the case of the opposite parties before the Tribunal that the scheme of compassionate appointment does not cover case of giving employment assistance to a son or daughter of an employee who has been compulsorily retired or punished in disciplinary proceeding. The Tribunal has held that the compassionate appointment can be given according to the Scheme. Before the Tribunal, the Petitioner also wanted to take ground that his father was mentally ill during that period and he should not have been compulsorily retired; rather he should have been invalidated from service. But since his compulsory retirement was never challenged before the Tribunal and only by way of amendment after a gap of 12 years an additional plea was taken, the Tribunal did not entertain the same.
In view of the above facts and circumstances, we find no illegality, impropriety or manifest error of law in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal.
Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is dismissed.
Sanju Panda, J.
I agree