Shankar Lal vs Central Administrative Tribunal

Instant petition is directed against the order of Tribunal dt. 11/09/2012 rejecting claim of the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment in place of his father who died, while in service, on 01/11/2002.

It reveals from the record that the petitioner got married a year before his father''s death and obviously holding an independent unit but after his father''s death and being one of the major member of his family & claiming to be dependent upon having no source of income, moved application seeking compassionate appointment. However, as per the policy of the Govt., the matter for compassionate appointment could be considered for the post of Class IV/III against 5% quota of the sanctioned strength of the cadre and candidature of the petitioner was also considered sympathetically for the year from 2003 to 2007 but the suitable employment could not be offered to him for want of vacancy under 5% quota and his claim for compassionate appointment finally turned down and the widow, mother of the petitioner, was communicated vide letter dt. 27/04/2009.

Assailing validity of the communication made, Original Application came to filed on 20/07/2012 and since the period of limitation for filing Original Application before the Tribunal is one year from the date of passing of the order impugned or from the date of service, in support thereof, a Misc. Application was filed seeking condonation of delay on the pretext that copy was served and brought to his notice on 14/10/2011 and if the order impugned is taken note of from the date of service, it was within the period of limitation and his grievance was required to be considered on merits.

The Tribunal, at the admission stage, taking note of the material on record and the other salient features which were available regarding death of his father which took place on 01/11/2002 and the date of filing of the Original Application in July, 2012 and so also the fact that the terminal benefits, which the widow was entitled for on account of death of his husband, must have been paid and taking note of the fact that he was already married a year before his father''s death, arrived at a conclusion that at least an inference can be drawn that the family was not indigent or in financial crunch which needs compassionate employment.

It is true that the public employment is always made after adopting due process of selection in conformity with the mandate of Art. 14 of the Constitution but compassionate appointment being exception to the normal rule of public employment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Taking note of the facts & circumstances into consideration, the Tribunal was not inclined to grant indulgence to consider his case for compassionate appointment at such a belated stage.

We have considered the submissions made by the petitioner and also looked into the order of the Tribunal but do not find any manifest error being committed which requires interference by this Court u/Art. 227 of the Constitution of India.

Consequently, the writ petition, being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.