AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.
CM No. 9813/2011
Allowed.
CM No. 9814/2011
Delay in filing CM No. 9812/2011 is condoned.
CM No. 9812/2011
Application seeking restoration of the writ petition is allowed upon the condition that the writ petition would be heard today itself.
Learned Counsel concedes as afore-noted.
The application is allowed.
WP(C) 22673/2005
Challenge is to the judgment and order dated 14.9.2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing OA No. 2437/2004 filed by the Petitioner.
Upon the death of her husband on 24.9.2000, Petitioner sought compassionate appointment which was denied.
It may be noted that only 5% vacancies have to be allocated towards compassionate appointment.
Petitioner had filed the application seeking compassionate appointment on 25.10.2000.
As held by the Tribunal, and it being a finding of fact, we accept the same for the reason nothing has been shown to us that the finding is incorrect; the finding being that since 1995, No. vacancy was available under compassionate appointment quota except one which arose in 1998 and thereafter one vacancy arose in the year 2002.
Screening committee met on 11.7.2003 and considered various applicants. One Smt. Rama, Respondent No. 5 who had also sought compassionate appointment was found to be the most deserving and hence was offered a job. Since vacancy pertaining to the year 1998 had already been filled up, vacancy which arose on 2002 was to be filled.
The comparative financial position of the Petitioner and Smt. Rama as indicated by the Tribunal may be noted. It is as under:
Sl. No.
Name
DCRG
CGEIS
GPF
Leave Encashment
Family Pension
LIC Policy
1
Smt. Shakuntla W/o late Sh. Samay Chand (Sr. No. 19)
99,828/-
38,482/-
37,032/-
79,585/-
2950/-
60,000/-
2
Smt. Rama W/o Sh. sanjay Kumar (Sr. No. 26)
52,920/-
17,405/-
17,325/-
Nil
1275/-
Nil
It is apparent that Smt. Rama is a more deserving candidate.
The Tribunal has noted that as per DOP&T OM dated 5.5.2003, maximum period for which a request pertaining to compassionate appointment can be kept pending is 3 years.
The question of the Petitioner staking any claim does not arise.
Attempt to question the 3 years'' maximum period prescribed under OM dated 5.5.2003 is negated by us for the simple reason the purpose of compassionate appointment is to give immediate relief to a family which finds itself in penury on account of sudden and untimely death of the sole bread earner. As time passes by, the family is expected to find succor elsewhere.
We conclude by holding that compassionate appointment is not an alternative source of employment and people must compete with the rest. It, being an exception to the rule, must be construed strictly.
We dismiss the writ petition but without imposing any costs.