P.A. Zulfikar Ali, by Power of Attorney Holder C.K. Nadeera vs The Union of India

Justice C. T. Ravikumar

The petitioner, P.A. Zulfikar Ali, is the son of P.B. Alikoya who died on 6.8.1999 while working as a Sorting Assistant at R.M.S. CT Division, Palakkad. The said P.B. Alikoya, had he continued in service, would have superannuated on 30.6.2001, going by the materials on record. The petitioner who was 24 years old at the time of the death of his father applied for appointment on compassionate ground. In an earlier round, the view taken by the Department against granting employment on compassionate ground was set aside by the Central Administrative Tribunal. Thereafter, by Ext. P6, the case was again reconsidered and rejected. That was challenged before the Tribunal. The request of the petitioner did not find favour in the hands of the Tribunal. Hence, this writ petition filed in the year 2003, though numbered only in 2006 on account of representation delay. As noticed in impugned Ext.P6 decision of the Administration, if Alikoya had continued to discharge duties and responsibilities, he would have superannuated on 30.6.2001 and he would have been eligible for Rs. 1275/- as pension per month. The widow is getting Rs. 2,250/- as family pension. As on the probable date of superannuation, had Alikoya being alive, the widow had to take care of a daughter who by the time would have been 16 years of age. The establishment points out in the impugned Ext.P6 that the petitioner would have by that time attained the age of 26 years.

Be that as it may, in the impugned Ext.P7 decision of the Tribunal all the relevant aspects were considered and the Tribunal has concluded that there was no reason for substituting the views of the establishment with the views of the Tribunal, having regard to the terms of the Scheme. We remind ourselves that following the demise of Alikoya on 6.8.1999 now, till 27th February, 2012, no compassionate appointment has been given to any claimant, including the petitioner. After this long lapse of time, when we queried as to why the writ petition is filed in 2003 through the power of attorney holder, who is none other than the widow of Alikoya, it is candidly stated that the petitioner works abroad though according to the Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, for him, it is only a pursuit for a hand to mouth existence. We are not persuaded to think that in exercise of authority under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India we need to interfere with the impugned Ext.P7 at this distance of time. We do not find any legal infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned Ext.P7. The writ petition fails.

In the result, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs.