Sunil Kumar Bhatt vs Union of India and Others

J.K. Jain and Rajendra Menon, JJ.—Shri P.S. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner.

Shri Sushrut A. Dharmadhikari, learned Counsel for the respondents.

Challenge in this writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution is made to an order dated 7.8.2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur in O.A. No. 278/08 whereby application for compassionate appointment filed by the petitioner has been rejected.

Petitioner''s father Late Amar Chand was working in the respondents'' establishment and died in harness on 20.4.2001. Seeking compassionate appointment after death of his father, petitioner filed an application. The claim was considered and rejected and when the same was done, challenge was made to the rejection before the Central Administrative Tribunal and when the application before the Central Administrative Tribunal was also rejected and, therefore, this petition.

From the records, it is seen that after death of petitioner''s father on 20th April, 2001, petitioner submitted a representation after about three years on 2nd August, 2004. The same was considered and the Post Master General vide letter dated 10th September, 2004 informed the petitioner through the office of Chief Post Master General, Bhopal that the application has been considered in the meeting of the appropriate committee held on 4th August, 2006 and as the petitioner did not fulfill the criteria laid down to come within the category of indigent conditioned family, the application was rejected.

Thereafter, another representation was submitted on 2nd January, 2008 for reconsideration and when nothing was done, the application has been filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the claim has been rejected.

Except for contending that the claim of the petitioner has not been properly considered, nothing is brought to the notice of this Court based on which it can be said that the claim has not been properly considered.

It is seen from the records that for the purpose of considering the claim for compassionate appointment, a scheme has been formulated by the Govt. of India dated 12.12.79 Annexure R-3. The Circle Relaxation Committee considers the claim for compassionate appointment based on the income of the family of the deceased employee, the educational qualification of the family members, Number of dependants, the assets and liabilities left by the Govt. servant and, thereafter, the post retiral benefits available.

It is also seen that only 5 % posts are reserved for compassionate appointment and based on the merit after evaluation, the claim is considered and rejected.

In the case of the petitioner, it was found that the committee did not consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment as the committee found that on the basis of the criteria laid down, the petitioner does not come within the category of indigent and his claim is rejected. Annexure R-4 dated 4.8.2004 are the minutes of the committee which considered and rejected the claim of the petitioner.

Compassionate appointment is not a matter of right nor is it a regular mode of recruitment or appointment to the post in the Government service. Compassionate appointment is done strictly in accordance with the schemes and policies applicable in the department and once, the claim is, considered and a decision taken, in the absence of any violation to the scheme or statutory provisions, interference by a writ Court into such matters is not called for. In the present case, except for contending that the claim of the petitioner is not considered properly in accordance with the scheme, nothing is brought to the notice of this Court on the basis of which it can be held that the claim is not properly considered.

Accordingly, finding no case made out for interference, this petition is dismissed.