JUDGMENT Hon’ble Pankaj Naqvi, J.—Heard Shri C.K. Parekh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Shikha Dixit, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has sought essentially a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 28.8.2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad whereby Original Application No. 248 of 2007 filed by the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected. 3. In order to appreciate the issue involved in the present writ petition, it would be necessary to state in brief certain facts, which are as under: “(i) The father of the petitioner namely, Gopi Nath Yadav, who was working as Sub-Post Master, Sub-Post Office S.O., Allahabad died in harness on 26.10.2000 and that he left behind him his wife and four sons namely, Lal Pratap, Sheo Pratap, Hari Pratap and Tej Pratap, all happened to be major at the time of death. (ii) The petitioner - Hari Pratap applied for grant of compassionate appointment and his case was considered by the Circle Relaxation Committee of U.P. Circle in its meetings held in the year 2005 when 220 case came up for consideration to fill up 26 vacancies under the compassionate appointment quota. Keeping in view various guidelines and factors, which are to be considered before granting compassionate appointment and also inter se merit of all the applicants and also taking into account assets and liabilities, the extent of indigence of the family members of the dependants. It was found that the case of the petitioner could not qualify for grant of compassionate appointment and accordingly the rejection was communicated through a letter dated 25.4.2005, issued by Chief, Post Master General, U.P. Circle, Lucknow. (iii) The petitioner, being dissatisfied from the aforesaid decision, challenged the same before the Tribunal by filing Original Application No. 785 of 2005, which came to be disposed of on 9.5.2006 with the direction to the respondents to take into account the decision of the Apex Court and to make out a proper case for the department of personnel for their consideration and decision thereon and if the petitioner is found eligible he be offered appointment, subject to the availability of vacancy and in case the request is to be declined, reasons thereof may be communicated. (iv) Pursuant to the aforesaid order of Tribunal, the department of personal and training examined the case of the petitioner extenso and took into account the decision of the Apex Court. The opinion of the department is as under : “The consolidated scheme, on compassionate appointment contianed in this department’s OM dated 9th October, 1998 as modified by a few OMs subsequently issued is a fairly comprehensive document, which was prepared with due care covering various relevant aspects. This scheme nowhere indicates that the family of deceased Government employee will become ineligible for consideration for compassionate appointment on account of terminal benefits alone. The basic criteria that should decide whether a case qualifies for consideration for appointment under the scheme is that the family should be indigent and deserves immediate assistance for relief from financial destitutions. Para 16 (c) of the scheme contains the requisite guidelines that should be kept in view for taking a decision for recommending a case (or otherwise) for compassionate appointment. It is indicated therein that while considering a request for appointment on compassionate grounds’ a balanced and objective assessment of the financial conditions of the family has to be made taking into account its assets and liabilities (including the benefits received under the various welfare schemes mentioned above) and all other relevant factor’s such as presence of an earning member, size of family, ages of the children and the essential needs of the family, etc. Under the scheme (Para - 12 (c) and (d), the committee set up by the department for the purpose, is to consider an application for compassionate appointment in the light of the policy guidelines issued by DOP & T. The recommendations of the committee are to be placed before the competent authority and the Department, at the appropriate level, is vested with the authority to take a decision in a case. In the instant case, if Department of Posts, after following the prescribed procedure, did not find the case of the petitioner meriting grant of compassionate appointment, the same cannot be questioned and has to be accepted as such.” (v) In view of the aforesaid guidelines of the DOP & T the competent authority found that the dependant of the deceased family has been paid an amount of Rs. 5,79,504/- as terminal benefits and is also in receipt of family pension @ Rs. 5,79,504/- as terminal benefits and is also in receipt of family pension @ Rs. 3025/- + dearness allowance, as admissible, per month and that the dependants have their own house to live in and also some landed property. It has further held that the elder son is employed. There is no liability of any minor children and marriage of daughter etc. and, therefore, in these circumstances, dependant family cannot be said to be living in a state of indigence so as to warrant a claim of appointment on compassionate basis. It further held that almost six years have elapsed since the death of the deceased employee and, therefore, the very purpose of giving compassionate appointment being to tide over a grave and sudden financial crisis, which has befallen on the family of the deceased on account of death of the deceased employee has lost its purpose as family has survived for a considerable period without such an employment. Accordingly, by order dated 7.11.2006 issued from the office of the Chief Post Master General, Circle U.P., Lucknow the request made by the petitioner was declined. (vi) Once again, the petitioner, being aggrieved from the aforesaid order dated 7.6.2011 filed the present Original Application, which has now been dismissed by the impugned order, hence the present writ petition.” 4. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the Tribunal while passing the impugned order has not adverted to the relevant considerations, which is necessary for adjudication of compassionate appointment and, on the contrary, has failed to take note of certain factual aspects from which indigency of such an extent and degree could be inferred, which could have warranted a compassionate appointment. 5. Per contra, the submission of the learned standing counsel is that the impugned order does not suffer from any legal perversity and the same is valid and sustainable in law, as the relevant considerations have been adverted to and thereafter the claim has been rejected assigning good and convincing reasons. 6. The sole issue to be examined by this Court is as to what is the scope and extent of judicial review in case where the issue of consideration of compassionate appointment has been examined on relevant considerations and thereafter, the claim has been rejected? 6. The sole issue to be examined by this Court is as to what is the scope and extent of judicial review in case where the issue of consideration of compassionate appointment has been examined on relevant considerations and thereafter, the claim has been rejected? The writ Court, unlike a Court of appeal, is not to examine the decision on merits, as its scope is only confined to examine the illegality, if any, only in the decision making process. In other words, if the relevant considerations, such as the number of dependants and financial condition of the family of the deceased etc. are examined objectively on a factual basis and thereafter the claim is rejected, the writ Court would loathe to interfere against such a decision. 7. On the facts of the present case, we find that the order dated 7.6.2011 (Annexure 3 to the writ petition) impugned before the Tribunal records in para 4 thereof the following consideration, which were considered before the request was turned down. The said para is quoted hereunder : “4. In view of the above guides of DOP&T, the competent authority has seen the case and found that the dependant family was paid admissible amount of Rs. 5,79,504/- as terminal benefits and is in receipt of family pension @ 3025- plus dearness relief as admissible per month. The family consists of the wife of deceased employee and four major sons. The dependant family has its own house to live in. It is also seen that the family is earning some income from available agricultural land. The elder son is employed as GDS MC. There is no any liability of minor children and marriage of daughter etc. Therefore, the dependant family cannot be said in indigent condition. Further the ex-official died about six years before the time the Circle Relaxation Committee is considering the case again. After a lapse of these years the basic purpose of providing immediate assistance is not relevant. As per advice dated 7.7.2000 from DOP&T, (the Nodal Department), fresh cases should be given preference over past case so as to help the family which is indigent and deserves immediate assistance for relief from financial destitution to get over the emergency. After a lapse of these years the basic purpose of providing immediate assistance is not relevant. As per advice dated 7.7.2000 from DOP&T, (the Nodal Department), fresh cases should be given preference over past case so as to help the family which is indigent and deserves immediate assistance for relief from financial destitution to get over the emergency. It is also observed by the Apex Court that compassionate appointment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period and is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. Thus there is no reason to intervene in the case, hence case is rejected.” 8. The Apex Court in Union Bank of India and others v. M.T. Latheesh, (2006) 7 SCC 350 , has held that once the relevant parameters for granting compassionate appointments have been considered and thereafter, the claim has been rejected assigning cogent reasons, then no fault or illegality or arbitrariness can be alleged against such a rejection. 9. Considering the facts in totality, we are of the considered view that both the orders, impugned before the Tribunal and one before us, do not suffer from any errors apparent on the face of record, as all relevant considerations for grant of compassionate appointment have been adverted to objectively before the request was turn down and accordingly, the scope of writ Court being very limited in nature, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 10. The writ petition fails and is accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. ——————