Shravankumar Bhaijibhai Thakor vs Director General and Others

V.M. Sahai, J.—We have heard learned Counsel Mr. Jigar G. Gadhavi for the Petitioner.

This petition has been filed challenging order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad in Original Application No. 408 of 2010 with M.A. No. 450 of 2010 dated 1.12.2010.

One B.B. Thakor, Postman, Sabarmati died in harness on 20.1.1999 leaving behind widow,three sons, aged 36 years, 30 years and 19 years. The Petitioner at the time of death of his father, was 19 years old. He is now 30 years old. He was the youngest son. It was not brought on record as to what the other two elder sons (brothers of the Petitioner) were doing. The compassionate appointment has been claimed by third brother, who was the youngest. The claim for compassionate appointment was considered by the Circle Relaxation Committee on 27.1.2003, but the claim of the Petitioner was not recommended for compassionate appointment. The Petitioner submitted representation on 15.7.2007 to the Chief Postmaster General, Gujarat Circle, Ahmedabad followed by reminders dated 23.12.2008, 26.1.2009 and 16.2.2009. The representations were rejected. Order was communicated on 12.3.2009, stating that the request of the Petitioner for reconsideration of the claim for compassionate appointment was considered by the competent authority and the claim being more than 10 years old, reconsideration was not possible. The Petitioner urged before the Tribunal that the Respondents have not assessed the penury condition of the family and they have committed gross errors and irregularities and the terminal benefits received by the family could not be taken into account while determining the penury condition of the family for compassionate appointment.

The Tribunal relied on a decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of State of Jammu & Kashmir and Ors. v. Sajid Ahmed Mir reported in 2006 SCC(L&S) 1195, wherein it has been held by the Hon''ble Apex Court that compassionate is an exception to the general rule. Such appointments are to be granted in compelling circumstances where sole breadwinner of the family has suffered a setback. Such appointments are provided to meet immediate exigency in the family of the deceased. It was also observed by the Hon''ble Apex Court that writ petition was filed after 12 years of the death of father and if the family could survive for 12 years, there was no need for compassionate appointment. Whereas, in the instant case, the case was considered and the claim was rejected in 2003 and thereafter, the Petitioner''s representations were finally rejected in 2009. Therefore, in our opinion, from the date of the death of the father, i.e. 20.1.1999, as we are in 2011, 12 years have passed and if the family could survive for 12 years, it can survive further. Over and above, the other two brothers of the Petitioner must be earning. Even if they are not earning, at this stage, no compassionate appointment could be offered to the Petitioner.

For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any illegality in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. This writ petition fails and is accordingly dismissed.