AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Union of India.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 22.7.2013, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna, Circuit Bench at Ranchi, in O.A No.167 of 2012 (R), whereby, the application filed by the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground at the place of her grandmother, was rejected by the Central Administrative Tribunal.
The grandmother of the petitioner, namely, Bedni Turi died in harness on 28.6.1999, leaving behind her only son, Prahlad Turi, who had applied for his own appointment on compassionate ground on 19.7.1999.
It is the case of the petitioner that in spite of making several representations, no order was passed on his prayer and finally, on 12.3.2008, Prahlad Turi, the father of the present petitioner, submitted an affidavit to the effect that he had become physically unfit and prayed for giving appointment to his only daughter, i.e., the present petitioner. Since no appointment was given to the petitioner, the O.A was filed in the Central Administrative Tribunal.
The impugned order shows that the respondents had contested the case by filing the written statement, in which, it was stated that the application of the father of the petitioner was duly considered by the Compassionate Appointment Committee on 10.7.2002 and since he was not found fit for appointment, his case was rejected. It was the further case of the respondents that the grand-daughter of a deceased employee was not entitled to any compassionate appointment.
The Central Administrative Tribunal had taken into consideration these facts and has come to the conclusion that the case of the father of the applicant was rejected in the year 2002 itself and thereafter, he neither approached the Tribunal, nor challenged the same in the administrative hierarchy and thereafter, the present O.A was filed only in the year 2012 after the death of the father of the petitioner. The Tribunal also took note of the fact that there was no provision for compassionate appointment of the grand-daughter of an employee, and on both these grounds, i.e., the ground of inordinate delay, as also the non-entitlement of the petitioner, the application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal by the impugned order dated 22.7.2013. Even the present writ application is filed after more than two and half years of passing the impugned order by the Central Administrative Tribunal.
We do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. There is no merit in this writ application and the same is accordingly, dismissed.