JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed by the petitioners against the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal') dated 26th of July, 2001 in Original Application No. 445/2000. 2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the filing of this writ petition are that the petitioner No. 1 Brij Bhushan Sharma (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the petitioner No. 1') was appointed on the post of Extra Departmental Mail Carrier (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the EDMC') at Jeewad on 27th October, 1978. He was discharging his duties to the utmost satisfaction of his superiors. Unfortunately, one Rajesh Kumar son of Mangi Lal, resident of Ghatan, Tehsil Weir, who is a hardened criminal, threw salt acid on the petitioner No. 1 at 5.00 AM on 5.6.2000 which came into contact to his both eyes. He immediately lodged a criminal case on the same day against the accused Rajesh Kumar son of Mangi Lal, being F.I.R. No. 168/98. The petitioner No. 1 was referred to General Hospital, Bharatpur for treatment. Later on he was referred to S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur. He was treated in Burn Unit as also in the Eyes unit at the S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur from 6.11.1998 to 7.12.1998. As a result of this incident, he completely lost the vision in his both eyes. The Head of the Opthalmology Department, S.M.S. Medical College & Hospital, Jaipur certified that the petitioner No. 1 has lost the vision in his both eyes due to the acid burn. The certificate is there on record of the writ petition as annexure-3. 3. After discharge from the Hospital, the petitioner No. 1 went to his native village. There he came to know that the respondent Department has removed him from the services without complying with the provisions of Extra Departmental Postal Rules and in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice and fair play and in his place on Rajesh Singh, the respondent No. 5 has been appointed. He submitted a representation to the Assistant Superintendent of Post Office, Bayana and made therein serious grievance against the appointment of respondent No. 5. He submitted a representation to the Assistant Superintendent of Post Office, Bayana and made therein serious grievance against the appointment of respondent No. 5. It if further submitted that as he has no source of income and his family is on the verge of starvation his wife Smt. Poonam Sharma, the petitioner No. 2 herein, who is middle pass, may be given appointment as EDMC in his place so as to get the financial assistance to maintain their family. The prayer has also been made for recalling of the appointment given to the respondent No. 5 as EDMC. 4. The Assistant Superintendent of Post Office, Bayana Sub Division, Bayana under its letter dated 6th of January, 1999 (Annexure-5) informed to the petitioner No. 1 that his leave is sanctioned on the condition of producing by him the medical certificate. It is stated in this letter that the petitioner No. 1 has not sent the medical certificate, though he remained absent since November, 1998. The leaves are stated to have been sanctioned for the minimum period of one month. It is informed to the petitioner No. 1 that in his place, alternative arrangements have been made and Rajesh Singh, the respondent No. 5, has been appointed EDMC purely on ad hoc basis is given with the clear understanding that or. regaining health and on the return of the petitioner No. 1, he shall be relieved from the post. 5. Some time in the month of August, 1999 the petitioner No. 2 personally went to the Office of the respondent No. 3, the Chief Post Master General for Rajasthan, Jaipur. The respondent No. 3 directed the respondent No. 4, the Superintendent of Post Office, Dholpur Division, Dholpur, to issue necessary forms to the petitioner No. 2 for appointment on compassionate ground and to obtain her application on the prescribed proforma. The petitioners submitted the application form duly filled in along with all the requisite testimonials to the Department but nothing was done. Reiterating all the facts the petitioner No. 1 submitted a representation on 1st of December, 1999 and prayed therein to. give appointment to the petitioner No. 2 on compassionate ground. The family of the petitioner No. 1 consists of six members including himself. The petitioners have three daughters and one son and all are of tender age and there is no body in the family to support them financially. give appointment to the petitioner No. 2 on compassionate ground. The family of the petitioner No. 1 consists of six members including himself. The petitioners have three daughters and one son and all are of tender age and there is no body in the family to support them financially. They have no source of income with the family and are on the verge of starvation. They have been able to survive so far with great difficulty. It was prayed that the Department should be merciful on them and provide her employment on compassionate ground so that she can maintain her family. 6. The respondent No. 4 vide his letter, which the petitioner No. 2 received some time in the month of February, 2000, informed her that the respondent No. 3 by his order No. Rectt/4-104/99 dated 21.1.2000, has rejected her application for appointment on compassionate ground since it was not possible to provide her employment being the dependents/relatives of Extra Departmental Postal Carrier as per the provisions of D.P. & T. Circular No. 14/25/91/ED & Training dated 29th of May, 1992. A copy of the letter is there on record of the writ petition as Annexure-7. 7. Having aggrieved of this order dated 21.1.2000 and dissatisfied with the approach of the respondent Department communicated to them under the letter dated 21st of January, 2000, the petitioners filed Original Application bearing No. 445/2000 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur. In the Original Application the petitioner No. 1 has given out that he submitted his resignation due to his blindness resulted after the said incident on 5.6.2000. In his resignation it is Stated that he is unable to perform his duties as EDMC so same may be accepted, but his resignation has not been accepted by the respondent Department and thus it cannot be said that the resignation submitted by him has been accepted. 8. The Original Application was contested by both, the Department as well as the respondent No. 5 herein. The Tribunal under its order dated 26th of July, 2001 rejected the Original Application and thus this writ petition. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned Tribunal considered the grievances of the petitioners in most cursory and casual manner. The crux and substance of the matter has not been even referred to what to say to consider the same by it. 10. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned Tribunal considered the grievances of the petitioners in most cursory and casual manner. The crux and substance of the matter has not been even referred to what to say to consider the same by it. 10. It has next been contended that the learned Tribunal has committed serious illegality in concluding the matter against the petitioners only on the ground that the petitioner No. 1 himself submitted his resignation and the respondent Department was not at fault in accepting the same. The circumstance under which the petitioner No. 1 resigned from the services has not been taken into consideration. Carrying further this contention, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the learned Tribunal as well as the Union of India and its Officers altogether have ignored the provisions of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner No. 1 was rendered incapacitated while in service and it was the duty and obligation on ti;e part of the Union of India and its officers either to provide him alternative employment or to provide his wife, the petitioner No. 2, the appointment on compassionate ground so that they may be able to maintain there family. In stead of discharging their pious obligation and duties, the respondents have closed the case of the petitioner No. 1 once for all on the ground that he himself submitted resignation. It is urged that when it is admitted case that the petitioner No. 1 had lost the vision of his both eyes, even if he has submitted his resignation, it has to be taken in correct perspective, but that has not been done. 11. Lastly it is contended that in case the Union of India and its Officers were not able to adjust the petitioner No. 1 in other job, his wife, the petitioner No. 2, should have been provided employment compassionate ground. 12. The learned counsel for the Union of India and its Officers contended that the petitioner No. 1 himself submitted his resignation and it is accepted. Thus, his claim for giving him the alternative job/service does not stand to any merits. 12. The learned counsel for the Union of India and its Officers contended that the petitioner No. 1 himself submitted his resignation and it is accepted. Thus, his claim for giving him the alternative job/service does not stand to any merits. So far as to the claim of the petitioner No. 1 to give appointment to his wife, the petitioner No. 2, on compassionate ground, the learned counsel for the Union of India and its Officers contended that there is no provision to give compassionate appointment to the dependents of EDMC. In the alternative, it is contended that the petitioner No. 1 has not died in harness and thus question does not arise of giving his wife any appointment on compassionate ground. 13. Shri Karan Pal Singh, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 5, supported the order of the learned Tribunal. 14. We have given our anxious and thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the entire record of the writ petition. 15. Looking to the facts of this case when the matter came up for hearing on 5th of March, 2003, the court felt it appropriate to direct the presence of the respondent No. 3, the Chief Post Master General for Rajasthan, Jaipur. In pursuance of that direction Shri G. Mohan Kumar, the Chief Post Master General, is present. We are constraint to state that the Chief Post Master General, Rajasthan, Jaipur has no heart to consider this matter sympathetically and on humanitarian grounds. He was called upon by the court so as to find out some positive solution of the problem either to give to the petitioner No. 1 a suitable alternative job/service befitting to his condition or to provide employment to his wife, the petitioner No. 2, on compassionate ground. But, the Chief Post Master General, Rajasthan, Jaipur started to argue the case on facts and legal points. But, the Chief Post Master General, Rajasthan, Jaipur started to argue the case on facts and legal points. When the court has expressed to him that it is a very hard case and further that the petitioner No. 1 has lost the vision of his both eyes, submission of resignation by him is hardly of any material and substance as he became incapacitated to discharge his duties as EDMC and some positive solution is required in this matter either to give to the petitioner No. 1 a suitable alternative job/service befitting to his condition or to provide employment to his wife, the petitioner No. 2, on compassionate ground. In stead of reaching to some positive approach, the respondent No. 3, the Chief Post Master General, Rajasthan, Jaipur has come up with all this bureaucratic approach that he may recommend for ex gratia appointment etc. to the wife of the petitioner No. 1. It is difficult to appreciate this bureaucratic approach in such matters of the Chief Post Master General, Rajasthan, Jaipur. It is unfortunate that the Officers of the Union of India have either altogether forgotten or showing total ignorance to the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, which put an obligation and the Central Act has also been enacted for rehabilitation of this class of the employees who became incapacitated for the job on which they are working. Instead of approaching in the positive direction to discharge their obligation as enumerated under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, a short cut method has been found out to render this destitute family to live in the crisis his resignation has been accepted and in his place another person has also been appointed. 16. The Chief Post Master General, Rajasthan, Jaipur appears not aware of this welfare and benevolent piece of legislation of the Central Act. The Tribunal has not considered this matter in correct perspective as well as in the light of the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the Central Act. 17. Not only this the Tribunal has not proceeded in the matter with the object and purpose to do the substantial justice or have a. justice oriented approach. The Tribunal has not considered this matter in correct perspective as well as in the light of the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the Central Act. 17. Not only this the Tribunal has not proceeded in the matter with the object and purpose to do the substantial justice or have a. justice oriented approach. It has concluded the chapter, the claim of the petitioners, either for alternative job to the petitioner No. 1 or compassionate appointment as EDMC to the petitioner No. 2 only on the ground of submission of the resignation by the petitioner No. 1. The resignation, undisputedly, has been submitted by the petitioner No. 1 but the respondent Department and its Officers of the welfare State, instead of accepting the same, should have made known to him his right of alternative job or service or where it was not there, to find out the way how the family could be able to make arrangements to get over the financial crisis. The family consist of the spouses, 3 daughters and one son. In case the substance of matter would have been considered in correct perspective, the Department could have been able to understand that the resignation by the petitioner No. 1 was submitted under compelling circumstances as he had lost the vision of his both eyes and became total blind. If the circumstances under which the petitioner No. 1 had submitted his resignation would have been considered the respondent Department and its Officers would not have accepted the resignation of the petitioner No. 1. The acceptance of the resignation and appointment of another person in his place even before the submission of his resignation goes to show that the interested persons in the Department were waiting for this opportunity so as to adjust their own person in the service. It is understandable that the petitioner No. 1 was on long leaves and stop gap arrangement was required to be made but when he submitted his resignation the Officers of the Department accepted the same which clearly shows that they wanted to make this vacancy available for the person in. whom they were interested. Favouritism and nepotism is clearly borne out form the reply to the writ petition of the respondents No. 2 to 4. whom they were interested. Favouritism and nepotism is clearly borne out form the reply to the writ petition of the respondents No. 2 to 4. Rajesh Singh for the reasons that he would have got better appointment, did not turn up on the job assigned to him but another person Vikram Singh has been appointed. In the reply to the writ petition even there is no whisper why the petitioner No. 1 could not be given alternative job. Both ways this unfortunate poor person has been made to suffer. The petitioner No. 1 was not given alternative job and the petitioner No. 2 was not given appointment on compassionate ground taking the shelter under some Circular of the Department. That is not the action and approach befitting to the Officers of the welfare State, the Union of India. 18. Now we deal with both the cases i.e. the acceptance of the resignation of the petitioner No. 1 and the denial of compassionate appointment to the petitioner No. 2.Acceptance of the resignation of the petitioner No. 1. It is not in dispute that the petitioner No. 1 submitted his resignation. On what date It was submitted, it is not mentioned by the petitioners in the writ petition. From the reply to the writ petition filed by the respondents No. 2 to 4 it appears that this resignation was received by the Assistant Superintendent of Post Office, Bayana on 5th of June, 2000. As per his remarks thereon, It was accepted by the Assistant Superintendent of Post Office, Bayana on the same day i.e. 5.6.2000. In the reply, the respondents No. 2 to 4, at internal page No. 6 and running page No. 43 thereof, admitted that the petitioner No. 1 submitted an application to the Assistant Superintendent of Post Office, Bayana to provide job to his wife. A copy of this application has also been endorsed to the Chief Post Master General for Rajasthan, Jaipur and the Superintendent of Post Office, Dholpur Division, Dholpur. On this application, the Circle Office called for a detailed report from the Office of the Superintendent of Post Office, Dholpur Division, Dholpur vide C.O. No. Staff 52-2/99 dated 5.2.1999. From the reply to the writ petition it is clear that this application has been submitted by the petitioner No. 1 much before 5.2.1999. On this application, the Circle Office called for a detailed report from the Office of the Superintendent of Post Office, Dholpur Division, Dholpur vide C.O. No. Staff 52-2/99 dated 5.2.1999. From the reply to the writ petition it is clear that this application has been submitted by the petitioner No. 1 much before 5.2.1999. The petitioner No. 2 as per the reply of the respondents No. 2 to 4 on the same page thereof, had also submitted an application to the Chief Post Master General Rajasthan, Jaipur for her appointment vice her husband. A detailed report was also called from the office of the Superintendent of Post Office, Dholpur Division, Dholpur vide letter No. Bharti/4-104/99 dated 18.3.1999. Thus, from the reply to writ petition it is clear that both the petitioners submitted applications more than one year before the date of alleged acceptance of the resignation of the petitioner No. I from the services for given appointment to the petitioner No. 2. 19. In the reply to the writ petition and para No. 8 thereof the respondents No. 2 to 4 stated that the resignation submitted by the petitioner No. 1 was accepted on 5.6.2000 with a copy to him. The same was accepted by the Assistant Superintendent of Post Office, Bayana on 5.6.2000 vide ASPOs Bayana memo No. PF/EDMC/Jeewad dated 5.6.2000. The copy of this memo is submitted as Annexure R/5 to the reply to the writ petition. 20. Rejoinder to the reply has been filed by the petitioner. In para No. 1 thereof it is stated that the petitioner No. 1 sent a letter on 16.8.2001 for withdrawal of his resignation by registered post. In this letter the petitioner No. 1 stated that due to the accident he has lost his vision of both the eyes and on that account the concerned authority had demanded resignation from him which has not been accepted till date so the resignation submitted by him may be permitted to be withdrawn and that application may be treated as cancelled. He further stated that as per his physical condition any suitable alternative job be given so that he may be able to maintain his family. He further stated that as per his physical condition any suitable alternative job be given so that he may be able to maintain his family. In para No. 5 of the rejoinder to the reply the petitioner No. 1 stated that the resignation submitted by him was never accepted till date and the acceptance of the resignation was never communicated to the petitioner No. 1 by the respondents till date and, thus, the case of the respondents that the resignation of the petitioner No. 1 has been accepted, is not correct. 21. The respondents No. 2 to 4 filed their reply to the rejoinder of the petitioners. In the reply to the rejoinder these respondents have not disputed submission of the application for withdrawal of the resignation by the petitioner No. 1 dated 15.8.2001. What it is stated that the resignation has been accepted on 5.6.2000 and this withdrawal is an afterthought. The contents of para No. 5 of the rejoinder are replied and we consider it to be appropriate to reproduce the text thereof in the judgment, which reads, "That the contents of this para are not admitted as stated by the petitioners. It is submitted that the petitioner No. 1 tendered his resignation to ASPO, Bayana and the same was accepted on 5.6.2000 (Annexure R/5)." 22. From these averments of the reply to the rejoinder we have no hesitation to hold that the respondents No. 2 to 4 have not denied the facts that; 1. The petitioner No. 1 sent a letter dated 15.8.2001 of withdrawal of his resignation to the competent authority by registered post on 16.8.2001; 2. The respondents No. 2 to 4 have not denied the specifically, categorical and clear averments made by the petitioner in the rejoinder to the reply that the letter of acceptance of resignation was never communicated to the petitioner No. 1 by the respondents till date. 23. On the record the respondents No. 2 to 4 have not produced any evidence except the document Annexure R15 in support of their case that the resignation has been accepted and the communication thereof has been sent to the petitioner No. 1. 23. On the record the respondents No. 2 to 4 have not produced any evidence except the document Annexure R15 in support of their case that the resignation has been accepted and the communication thereof has been sent to the petitioner No. 1. What the respondents No. 2 to 4 want to convey to the court by producing the document Annexure R/5 is that the copy of this acceptance of the resignation of the petitioner No. 1 has been found mention therein endorsed to the petitioner No. 1 and thus it has to be presumed, assumed and accepted that it was communicated to the petitioner No. 1. 24. Before proceeding further with the decision on this point we consider it to be appropriate to reproduce the letter Annexure R/5 here, which reads; "Unconditional (resignation) resignation tendered by Sh. Brij Bhushan Sharma EDMC Jiwad (Weir so) is hereby accepted with immediate effect." 25. On perusal of this document we find that there is a mention thereon that a copy of this letter was endorsed to the petitioner No. 1 but this alone is .not a sufficient evidence of proof of sending of this letter to the petitioner No. 1. Merely by this endorsement in this document it cannot presumed, assumed and accepted that this letter has been despatched/sent to the petitioner No. 1 by the respondents No. 2 to 4 and the. same has been received by him. It is a question of fact which is to be proved by producing cogent and satisfactory evidence that it was sent to the petitioner No. 1, delivered and received by him or by his authorised agent or any adult member of his family. There is no evidence of sending of this document either by registered post or through personal messenger or otherwise to the petitioner No. 1, thus, no question does arise of any further evidence that it was delivered to the petitioner.No. 1 and it was received by him. Much emphasis has been put by the respondents No. 2 to 4 that the learned Tribunal has decided the matter on the ground that the resignation has been submitted by the petitioner No. 1 and the submission of the letter of withdrawal of resignation by the petitioner No.1 as now pleaded is an afterthought. Much emphasis has been put by the respondents No. 2 to 4 that the learned Tribunal has decided the matter on the ground that the resignation has been submitted by the petitioner No. 1 and the submission of the letter of withdrawal of resignation by the petitioner No.1 as now pleaded is an afterthought. It is true that the petitioner No. 1 sent his letter of withdrawal of his resignation after the judgment of the Tribunal. The respondents No. 2 to 4 before the Tribunal though have taken this plea of submission of resignation by the petitioner No. 1 and that has been considered but the petitioner No. 1 has denied this alleged acceptance of his resignation and he was correct in his approach to submit this application. It is to be stated at the cost of repetition that a heavy burden lies on the Union of India and its Officers to prove by producing cogent and satisfactory evidence that the acceptance of the resignation has been communicated to the petitioner and which has been received by him, which they utterly failed to discharged. Otherwise also in such a hard case where this poor law paid employee, the petitioner No. 1, had lost vision in his both eyes, it is most unreasonable, unfair, unwarranted and uncalled for on the part of the Officers of the welfare State to come up with all these technical pleas and make all attempts to non suit them and their hardships. Here we consider it to be appropriate to make reference to the letter dated 15.8.2001 submitted by the petitioner No. 1 for withdrawal of his resignation submitted on 5.6.2000. The English translation of the contents of this letter is there in para No. 1 of the rejoinder. In this letter the petitioner No. 1 stated that due to the accident he has lost the vision of both his eyes and on that account the concerned. authority has demanded his resignation from the post of EDMC which has not been accepted till date by the concerned authority. 26. Having gone through the contents of this letter Annexure-9 and the translation thereof in para No. 1 of the rejoinder we find that it is not proper and correct translation thereof. authority has demanded his resignation from the post of EDMC which has not been accepted till date by the concerned authority. 26. Having gone through the contents of this letter Annexure-9 and the translation thereof in para No. 1 of the rejoinder we find that it is not proper and correct translation thereof. We find from Annexure-9 that the petitioner No. 1 submitted his resignation on the assurance given by the Department that in his place his wife will be given job. The contents of the documents Annexure-9 are not denied. Otherwise also if we go by the realities of the life and factual backdrop of the case what it is stated in Annexure-9 by the petitioner No. 1 appears to be correct. He was a low paid pressed employee having the family consisting of the spouse, 3 daughters and one son, he could not have thought of submitting his resignation from the service. This fact of submission of resignation further goes to show that the Officers would have certainly extended assurance to the petitioner No. 1, that his wife, the petitioner No. 2, will be given appointment on compassionate ground and that would have prompted him to submit his resignation. It is unfortunate that the Officers of the welfare State i.e. the Union of India have not stood to their assurance given by them to the petitioner No. 1. 27. Be that as it may, in the facts of the case where the petitioner No. 1 has lost his vision in both the eyes in an accident, the acceptance of the resignation of the petitioner No. 1 by the respondent No. 1 is not Bona fide, honest and fair dealing of the matter. 28. Taking into consideration this matter from any angle this resignation of the petitioner No. 1 cannot be admitted to have been accepted by the respondents No. 2 to 4 as they have failed to prove to the satisfaction of the court that the letter of acceptance thereof has been sent, delivered and received by the petitioner No. 1. Otherwise also, as said earlier, in the backdrop of the facts of the case acceptance of the resignation of the petitioner No. 1 by the respondent No. 3 is not fair, Bona fide, reasonable and in consonance with the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Otherwise also, as said earlier, in the backdrop of the facts of the case acceptance of the resignation of the petitioner No. 1 by the respondent No. 3 is not fair, Bona fide, reasonable and in consonance with the provisions of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Re the claim for compassionate appointment of petitioner No. 2. 29. The respondents No. 2 to 4, in the reply to the writ petition, have admitted that the petitioner No. 2 Smt. Poonam Sharma submitted an application to the Chief Post Master General Rajasthan, Jaipur for appointment vice the petitioner No. 1. On this application a detailed report was called for in this regard from the Office of the Superintendent of Post Office, Dholpur Division, Dholpur vide letter No. Bharti/4-104/99 dated 18.3.1999. The detailed report was sent to the Chief Post Master General Rajasthan, Jaipur from the Office of the Superintendent of Post Office, Dholpur Division, Dholpur vide DO Letter No. AH-1/41 dated 18.5.1999. This report was examined in the Office of the Chief Post Master General Rajasthan, Jaipur. The Chief Post Master General Rajasthan, Jaipur directed the Superintendent of Post Office, Dholpur Division, Dholpur to examine the case for appointment of the petitioner No. 2 on compassionate ground. The case was examined in the Office of the Superintendent of Post Office, Dholpur Division, Dholpur. A synopsis was prepared for the Superintendent of Post Office, Weir and submitted to the Circle Office, Jaipur vide the letter No. H-93/99 dated 11.10.1999 of Superintendent of Post Offices, Dholpur Division, Dholpur for consideration on compassionate ground to appoint the petitioner No. 2. This report submitted by the Superintendent of Post Office, Dholpur has not been submitted along with the reply. However, from the contents of the reply reasonably an inference can be drawn that the Superintendent of Post Office, Dholpur Division, Dholpur had accepted the claim of the petitioner No. 2 to give her appointment on compassionate ground. The case of the respondents No. 2 to 4 in the reply is that on consideration the Chief Post Master General Rajasthan, Jaipur has rejected the claim of the petitioner No. 1 lodged for giving appointment to the petitioner No. 2 on compassionate ground. The reference has been made to the letter No. Bharti/4-104/99 dated 21.1.2000 and that may be the decision taken on the application of the petitioner No. 2 for the compassionate appointment. The reference has been made to the letter No. Bharti/4-104/99 dated 21.1.2000 and that may be the decision taken on the application of the petitioner No. 2 for the compassionate appointment. This letter is not produced on record. The reference of this letter is there in Annexure-R/3, the letter No. 14-25/91 ED & Trg. dated 29.5.1992 addressed to the petitioner No. 2 by the Superintendent of Post Office, Dholpur Division, Dholpur. This claim of the petitioner No. 2, as per the reply of the respondents No. 2 petitioner No. 2, as per the reply of the respondents No. 2 to 4, was rejected as per the instructions contained in the letter No. 14-25/91 ED & Trg. dated 29.5.1992. This document is produced along with the reply to the writ petition as Annexure R/4. It is stated in the reply, the reference may have to para No. 7 thereof, that the Circular Selection Committee, Jaipur found that it was not possible to extent the scope of compassionate appointment to cover the dependents/near relatives of invalidated EDAs. The decision taken by the Circular Selection Committee, Jaipur is also not produced on the record of the writ petition. 30. The learned Tribunal in para No. 4 of the judgment has made reference to the instructions dated 4.8.1980 stated to have been issued by the DG P & T re the compassionate appointment holding that the prayer for compassionate appointment can be considered for one of the dependents of E.D. official, who dies while in service leaving the family in indigent circumstances subject to the conditions applicable to regular employees who dies while in service or retire on invalidated pension. The learned Tribunal further observed that as per the instructions such employment (compassionate appointment) to the dependents can be given only in hard and exceptional circumstances. The substance of the judgment of the learned Tribunal is that as the petitioner No. 1 was not retired from the services after medical de-categorisation, therefore, the case of the petitioner No. 1 does not come within the purview of rule for consideration for appointment on compassionate grounds as the petitioners No. 1 himself has resigned from the post. 31. Annexure R/4 is the copy of the letter No. 14-25/91 ED & Trg. 31. Annexure R/4 is the copy of the letter No. 14-25/91 ED & Trg. dated 29th of May, 1992 from the DG Post, New Delhi addressed to all concerned under the caption "Expeditious finalisation of cases pertaining to appointment of the dependents/near relatives of the deceased/invalidated ED Agents- Modification regarding". In this letter the reference has been made to the earlier letter dated 16/19.12.1991. The substance of this Circular is that earlier provision for compassionate appointments of the dependents/near relatives of invalidated ED Agents along with the dependents/relatives of those EDAs who die in harness, is discontinued. Though, we are not going to examine the validity, propriety and correctness of this decision of the respondent Union of India in this writ petition but, prima facie, on the face, it appears to be arbitrary as well as contrary to the mandate of the Constitution under Article 21 of the Constitution. In the case of invalidated EDAs, who is provided alternative suitable employment on the same pay protecting his pay etc. in his case not extending the benefits of compassionate appointment to one of his dependents or near relatives may not be contrary to the provisions of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India but here in this case the petitioner No. 1 has not been provided any alternative suitable employment. On the contrary, the respondent Department and its Officers has taken the resignation from him giving assurance that his wife will be given appointment on compassionate ground. In such cases, looking to the category of employment to which the petitioner No. 1 belongs, he is expected to have been given alternative job protecting his pay but that has not been done and further compassionate appointment has also not been given to his wife, the petitioner No. 2 on the ground, now as stated in the reply, that it is not covered under the Instructions dated 29th of May, 1992, which is highly arbitrary, unjust, unreasonable and contrary to the mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The learned Tribunal fell in error not to consider this matter in correct perspective and having justice oriented approach and to do substantial justice. Denial of both the claims as what are made in the original application by the petitioners only on the ground that the petitioner No. 1 has resigned from the service is wholly perverse. The learned Tribunal fell in error not to consider this matter in correct perspective and having justice oriented approach and to do substantial justice. Denial of both the claims as what are made in the original application by the petitioners only on the ground that the petitioner No. 1 has resigned from the service is wholly perverse. The Circulars/Instructions/ Rules etc. are made and framed providing Schemes for compassionate appointments to the dependents/near relations of the employees who die in harness and these are the benevolent piece of the provisions and all endeavour is to be made whosoever is concerned with the implementation thereof that these benefits are reached to the hands of the real beneficiaries thereof. The learned Tribunal has not considered this matter from this angle and aspect and closed the Chapter once for all the poor low paid employee only on the ground that as he tendered voluntarily resignation he is not entitled for either of the relief and as prayed for in the Original Application. 32. Meaning of submission of the resignation and acceptance thereof is not that the petitioner No. 1 will also not get retiral benefits whatsoever. It is not the case of the respondents No. 2 to 4 that the petitioner No. 1 has been given the retiral benefits. The petitioner No. 1 has lost his vision of both the eyes and become blind and thus he is not in a position to get any other employment except to beg to maintain his family. The case of the petitioner No. 1, a poor low paid employees, is made worst than the employee who die in harness. His position, survival in the accident, we are constraint to state, came worst for the family than if he would have died. Not only this, the family of the petitioner No. 1 will face more hardship than that of the family of the employee who die in harness, as the family has to bear the expenses of the maintenance of this destitute, helpless, totally blind and incapacitated person. Had he been dead, one of his family members would have got appointment on compassionate ground contrary he has become burden upon the destitute family. 33. Had he been dead, one of his family members would have got appointment on compassionate ground contrary he has become burden upon the destitute family. 33. The meeting to launch the Asian and Pacific Decade of Disabled Persons, 1993-2002 convened by the Economic and Social Commission for Asian and Pacific Region, held at Beijing on 1st to 5th December, 1992 adopted the proclamation on the Full Participation and Equality of People with Disabilities in the Asia and the Pacific region, India is a signatory to the said proclamation. It is considered necessary to implement the proclamation aforesaid and the Parliament in the 46th Year of Republic of India, to give effect to the proclamation aforesaid enacted the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities etc.) Act, 1995 (for short, 'the Act, 1995') It extends to whole of India except the State of Jammu & Kashmir. It has come into force from 7th of February, 1996. 34. In clause (1) of section 2 of the Act, 1995, 'disability is defined, which means, (i) blindness; (ii) low vision; (iii) leprosy-cured; (iv) hearing impairment; (v) locomotor disability; (vi) mental retardation; (vii) mental illness; 35. The word 'employer' has been defined in clause (j) of Section 2 of the Act, 1995 which means, (i) in relation to a Government, the authority notified by the Head of the Department in this behalf or where no such authority is notified, the Head of the Department; and, (ii) in relation to an establishment, the chief executive officer of that establishment. 36. The word 'blindness' has been defined in clause (b) of Section 2 of the Act, 1995 which refers to a condition where a person suffers from any of the following conditions, namely; (i) total absence of sight; or (ii) visual acuity not exceeding 6/60 or 20/200 (Snellen) in the better eye with correcting lenses; or (iii) limitation of the field of vision subtending an angle to 20 degrees or worse; 37. Clause (u) of Section 2 of the Act, 1995 defined the word 'person with low vision', which means a person with impairment of visual functioning even after treatment or standard refractive correction but who uses or is potentially capable of using vision for the planning or execution of a task with appropriate assertive device. 38. Clause (u) of Section 2 of the Act, 1995 defined the word 'person with low vision', which means a person with impairment of visual functioning even after treatment or standard refractive correction but who uses or is potentially capable of using vision for the planning or execution of a task with appropriate assertive device. 38. Clause (t) of Section 2 of the Act, 1995 defines the word "persons with disability' which means a person suffering from not less than forty per cent of any disability as certified by medical authority. 39. The word 'rehabilitation' has been defined in clause,(w) of Section 2 of the Act, 1995 which refers to a process aimed at enabling persons with disabilities to reach and maintain their optimal physical, sensory intellectual, psychiatric or social functional levels. 40. Section 47 in Chapter VIII of the Act, 1995 provides that no establishment shall dispense with or reduce in rank, an employee who acquires a disability during his service. 41. Proviso (1) to this Section provides that, if an employee, after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holding could be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits. 42. Proviso (2) of this Section provides that if it is not possible to adjust the employee against any post, he may be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation whichever Is earlier. 43. Sub-section (2) of Section 47 of the Act, 1995 prohibits denial of promotion to a person merely on the ground of his disability. The appropriate Government has been given power under the proviso to sub-section (2) of Section 47 of the Act, 1995, to exempt any establishment from the provisions of this section, having regard to the type of work carried on in any establishment, by notification and subject to such conditions, if any, as may be specified in such notification. 44. It is not the case of the respondent that the Department of Posts & Telegraphs, Government of India has been exempted from the provisions of the Act, 1995. 45. It must be remembered that a person does not acquire or suffer disability by choice. An employee who acquires disability during his service is permitted under Section 47 of the Act, 1995, to continue in service. 45. It must be remembered that a person does not acquire or suffer disability by choice. An employee who acquires disability during his service is permitted under Section 47 of the Act, 1995, to continue in service. Such employee acquiring disability, if not permitted to continue in service, would not only suffer himself but all those who are dependent on him would also suffer. This is exactly the case here because of this disability acquired by the petitioner, he alone Is not suffering but his wife and four minor children would s also suffer. This provision has come into force much before the resignation submitted by the petitioner No. 1. He may not be aware of this provision and we are confident in the facts of this case that he was not. But the respondent No. 3, the Chief Post Master General for Rajasthan, Jaipur must be knowing the provisions of the Act, 1995. This tendering of the resignation by the petitioner No. 1, if looked Into in the context of the provisions of Section 47 of the Act, 1995, could not have been accepted. Tendering of this resignation makes it clear that the petitioner No. 1 was not knowing of or made known of his this legal right conferred upon him under Section 47 of the Act, 1995. If he was knowing of his this legal right there was no occasion or question of s tendering resignation by him. On examination of the matter with reference to the provisions of Section 47 of the Act, 1995, we are satisfied that this resignation has been submitted at the desire of the respondents who would have assured him to give employment to his wife, the petitioner No. 2. The very opening part of Section 47 of the Act, 1995 reads that no establishment shall dispense with or reduce in rank, an employee, who acquired disability during the service. The very frame and contents of Section 47 of the Act, 1995 clearly Indicate its mandatory nature. The very opening part of Section 47 of the Act, 1995 reads that no establishment shall dispense with or reduce in rank, an employee, who acquired disability during the service. The very frame and contents of Section 47 of the Act, 1995 clearly Indicate its mandatory nature. It further provides that if an employee after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holding, could be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service s benefits, if it Is not possible to adjust the employee against any post, he is to be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation which ever is earlier. Looking to this frame and contents of mandatory nature of this Act of 1995 we are of the considered opinion that acceptance of his resignation by the Officers of the respondent Department is against this mandate of the enactment. This acceptance of his resignation has no effect, value 'and substance. Even this acceptance of his resignation, would not result in dispending with the services of the petitioner appellant No. 1 or brought to an end his services from the date it was given effect to. Section 47 of the Act, 1995 contains the clear directive that the employer shall not dispense with or reduce in rank the employee who acquires disability during his service. This acceptance of resignation is against this clear statutory directives to the Officers of the Union of India and the learned Tribunal has committed a serious error in rejecting the claim of the petitioner No. 1. 46. On construing a provision of social beneficial enactment that too dealing with disabled persons intended to give them equal opportunities, protection of rights and full participation, the view that advances the object of the Act and serves its purpose must be preferred to the one which obstructs the object and paralyses the purpose of the Act. Language of Section 47 is plain and certain, casting statutory obligation on the employer to protect an employee acquiring disability during service. The reference here may have to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kunal Singh v. Union of India & Another, JT 2003(2) SC 132 . Language of Section 47 is plain and certain, casting statutory obligation on the employer to protect an employee acquiring disability during service. The reference here may have to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Kunal Singh v. Union of India & Another, JT 2003(2) SC 132 . Their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kunal Singh's case (supra) making reference to the contention raised therein that as the appellant in that case was getting invalidity pension, is not entitled for benefits under Section 47 of the Act, 1995, held, "12. Merely because under Rule 38 of CCS Pension Rules, 1972, the appellant got invalidity pension is no ground to deny the protection, mandatorily made available to the appellant under section 47 of the Act. Once it Is held that the appellant has acquired disability during his service and if found not suitable for the post he was holding, he could be shifted to some other post with same pay-scale and service benefits; if it was not possible to adjust him against any post, he could be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post was available or he attains the age of Superannuation, whichever Is earlier, it appears no such efforts were made by the respondents. They have proceeded to hold that he was permanently incapacitated to continue in service-without considering the effect of other provisions of section 47 of the Act." 47. In the case in hand there is no dispute that the petitioner No. 1 had acquired disability during his service. The Department has also proceeded to hold that the petitioner No. 1 was permanently incapacitated to continue in service but neither the Department or the Central Administrative Tribunal have considered the effect of the provisions of Section 47 of the Act, 1995. In the case before Hon'ble the Supreme Court the services of the appellant were terminated as he was incapacitated to discharge the duties of the post which he held. 48. In view of the provisions of Section 47 of the Act, 1995 and the 4 authoritative pronouncement of their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme court In Kunal Singh case (supra), this action of the respondent Department to dispense with the services of the petitioner No. 1 by accepting his resignation and the order of the learned Tribunal cannot be allowed to stand. 49. 49. Before parting with this case, we would be failing in our duty if we 4 do not inform these poor petitioners of their legal right of getting the free competent legal services. Out of these two petitioners, one is woman. So far as petitioner No. 1 is concerned, he is not receiving any salary etc. since November, 1998. In the facts of this case, though, nothing can be said finally but prima facie we are satisfied that his total income would not have s exceeded As. 40,000/- per year, during this period. As per the provisions of Section 12 of the Legal Service Act, 1987 both these petitioners are entitled to have free competent legal services before the learned Tribunal as well as before this Court. It is unfortunate that these poor petitioners were not known of their right to have free competent legal services. In case they would have been informed of their this legal right, they would not have faced this difficulty, inconvenience and hardship to arrange the money for these litigations. It is a matter for consideration of the concerned authorities to find out the way how this poor class of litigants may know of their this legal right and may avail of the benefits provided under the Act, 1987. 50. As a result of the aforesaid discussion this writ petition succeeds and the same is allowed. The judgment of the learned Tribunal dated 26th of July, 2001 in OA No. 445/2000 is quashed and set aside. The writ petition Is allowed. The annexure No. 5 bearing No. PF/EDMC/Jiwad, dated 5.6.2000 to the reply to the writ petition, filed by the respondents No. 1 to 4, the communication of the decision of acceptance of the resignation of the petitioner No. 1, is quashed and set aside. The respondent No. 3, the Chief Post Master General for Rajasthan, Jaipur is directed to forthwith reinstate back the petitioner No. 1 in the service. The petitioner No. 1 shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits follows as a consequence of quashing and setting aside of the order Annexure R-5 and the judgment of the learned Tribunal. He shall be deemed to be in service for all the purposes and benefits. The petitioner No. 1 shall be entitled to all the consequential benefits follows as a consequence of quashing and setting aside of the order Annexure R-5 and the judgment of the learned Tribunal. He shall be deemed to be in service for all the purposes and benefits. The consequential benefits for which the petitioner No. 1 is entitled in pursuance of the judgment are to be determined and paid to him within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. In case the petitioner No. 1 is not found fit to discharge the duties on the post he was holding on his last working day, the respondent No. 3 is free to deal with the case in accordance with the provisions of Section 47 of the Act, 1995. The respondent No. 3 is also free to consider the matter of retirement of the petitioner No. 1 on invalidated pension but the petitioner No. 1's wife, the petitioner No. 2, is to be provided suitable employment as per her qualification and eligibility as a special case, if the provisions are not there to provide compassionate employment to the dependents of this category of employees. 51. In the facts of this case we are satisfied that these poor petitioners could have arranged the amount for litigation expenses before the learned Tribunal as well as before this Court, with great difficulty. The petitioner No.1 was low paid employee and was not in service since November, 1998, the day when he lost his eyes on account of some unscrupulous person thrown acid salt on his body. It is a matter of experience and realisation how these poor petitioners would have managed and survived for this long period with their four children. The respondents did not consider his case sympathetically in accordance with the provisions of the Act, 1995 and they have dragged the petitioners in the uncalled for litigation and, accordingly the petitioner No. 1, to enforce his legal right, approached to the Tribunal and thereafter to this Court. It is unfortunate that the litigation in our country is not a fun or joy. It heavily costs. In these circumstances, we consider it to be a fit case to award Rs. It is unfortunate that the litigation in our country is not a fun or joy. It heavily costs. In these circumstances, we consider it to be a fit case to award Rs. 10,000/- as costs of this litigation to be paid to the petitioner No. 1 personally within a period of one month of the date of receipt of the copy of this order, by the respondent No. 3 by way of Account Payee Cheque/DD/Pay Order. It is further made clear that the amount of arrears of his salary and other benefits is to be paid to the petitioner No. 1 through Account Payee Cheque/DD/Pay Order. The compliance of this order is to be reported to this court. *******