AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
I.M. Quddusi, J.—Heard Learned Counsel for the petitioners.
By means of this Writ Petition, the petitioners have prayed for a Writ in the nature mandamus directing the opp.parties to appoint Petitioner No. 1 in any post on compassionate grounds be fitting his qualification and is sue a Writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the orders in Annexures 7 and 8 rejecting the claim of Petitioner No. 2 for appointment on compassionate ground.
The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners are legal heirs of the deceased who was working as Telephone Operator in the office of the opp. parties and expired while in service in the year 1991. Thereafter the Petitioner No. 2 was offered appointment on compassionate grounds vide Order dated 25.9.1991 passed by the C.G.M.T., Orissa Circle, Bhubaneswar, but she did not accept the same and after a gap of 13 years she moved a representation for giving appointment to her son i.e., Petitioner No. 1 on compassionate ground. However, the same was rejected by Orders dated 7.10.2004 and 19.11.2004 vide Annexures-7 and 9 respectively in which it was indicated that the representations for appointment on compassionate ground was examined by High Power Committee of BSNL Board, New Delhi and it has been decided to reject the same. It is to be noticed that vide Order dated 22.9.2004 also a letter was sent by the Asst. Director General, BSNL to the Chief General Manager, BSNL stating therein that the purpose behind the scheme of compassionate ground appointment is to cater to the needs of the family to relieve itself from economic distress and it cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period in the case of the petitioners. The appointment was offered to the widow of the deceased which was refused by her at that time.
In letter dated 19.11.2004 the same thing was repeated while rejecting the representation which speaks as under :
"Smt. Parbati Sahoo applied for appointment on compassionate grounds for her son after attaining the age of 18 years by him. The request was considered by the Corporate Office of BSNL. The sole purpose behind the scheme of compassionate ground appointment is to cater to the needs of the family to relieve itself from economic distress and it cannot be granted after lapse of a reasonable period. Moreover there is no provision to change of post/person of already approved candidate, the request was rejected".
There is a catena of decisions of Hon''ble Apex Court that the purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground to all the dependants of the family of the deceased is to cater to the needs of the family which they require immediately after the death of the deceased as no one in the family who are the dependants of the deceased would be able to meet out the necessary requirement of the family. But in the instant case, the father of the Petitioner No. 1 died in the year 1991. The widow was offered appointment on compassionate ground. She did not accept the same which itself shows that there were no pressing need of the family to that finances. Now after a gap of about 13 years it cannot be said that the family of the deceased is in hardship or pressing need of finance.
Therefore, in view of the above mentioned facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned orders rejecting the representations of the petitioners for providing Petitioner No. 1 to appoint on compassionate ground in exercise of the powers conferred to this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
The Writ Petition is misconceived and as such the same is dismissed in the limine,
N. Prusty, J.
I agree