AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Union of India and its officers, aggrieved by the order dated 28th January, 2008 passed by the Patna Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. 32 of 2007, have preferred this application and seek its quashing.
Short facts, giving rise to the present application are; that the husband of the respondent died in harness on 23.8.1998 while working as Upper Division Clerk in the Geological Survey of India. He died leaving behind the widow, respondent herein and five minor children including two daughters. She made application for appointment on compassionate ground on Group-D post and her name was recommended for appointment by the Compassionate Appointment Committee on 23.8.2001. Later on, instructions were issued by the Director, Personnel and Training which provided for filling up 5% vacancies from direct recruitment quota on compassionate ground and it was further provided that the waiting list for compassionate appointment will last for a maximum period of three years. The respondent was denied appointment on the basis of those instructions.
She filed application before the Tribunal seeking direction for appointment on compassionate ground, inter alia, contending that instructions issued after the recommendation of the compassionate appointment committee will not govern her case.
This submission found favour with the Tribunal, it observed as follows:
The question before the Tribunal is whether the instructions issued by DOPT subsequent to the date of applicant''s application and the date of recommendation of compassionate appointment committee will apply retrospectively to deny the applicant appointment of compassionate ground. This issue has already been considered by Cuttak Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Nayan Kumar Nanda v. U.O.I. (OA 762 of 02) reported in 2004 (2) ATJ 432 and Mumbai Bench in the case of Smt Vasant v. U.O.I. Reported in 2006 (2) ATJ 490. Following decision of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Y.V. Rangaih and Ors. v. State of Karnataka AIR SC 852 and of P. Mahendran and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others, it has been held that the subsequent instructions limiting the quota to five per cent for compassionate appointment and keeping alive the waiting list for a maximum period of three years will apply to those who had applied after issue of these instructions. There is no apparent reason for this Single bench of the Tribunal not to follow the above decision.
Mr. Sudhir Singh, Assistant Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that giving appointment on compassionate ground after such a long period would frustrate its very object. He points out that object to give appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship, which the family suffers on account of sudden death of the employee.
True it is that the purpose of compassionate appointment is to mitigate the immediate hardship but the question in the present case is that as to whether instructions issued later on will apply retrospectively to cover the case of the respondent. The tribunal in paragraph quoted above had observed that it will not cover her case.
We do not find any error in the same.
Accordingly, this application is dismissed in limine.