Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 789 (HP)

Union of India v. Bhuvneshwar Sen

2015-07-01

RAJIV SHARMA, SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2015
Judgment : Rajiv Sharma, J.: This petition is instituted against the order, dated 27.05.2008, rendered in O.A. No. 497-HP-2006 by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Shimla. 2. Key facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the respondent’s father was serving in the Department of Posts. He died in harness on 11.08.2004, leaving behind his wife and two sons. Respondent moved an application seeking compassionate appointment for the post of Postal Assistant. Case of the respondent was considered for compassionate appointment by the Circle Selection Committee on 28.07.2005. Initially, the case of the respondent was rejected by the Circle Selection Committee taking into consideration the pensionery/retiral benefits received by the family of the respondent. Case of the respondent before the Tribunal was that his case was required to be considered for two more occasions. It is evident from the Office Memorandum, dated 5th May, 2003 that a decision has been taken that if compassionate appointment to genuine and deserving cases, as per the guidelines contained in the above Office Memorandum, dated 5th May, 2003 is not possible in the first year, due to non-availability of regular vacancy, the prescribed Committee may review such cases to evaluate the financial conditions of the family to arrive at a decision as to whether a particular case warrants extension by one more year, for consideration for compassionate appointment by the Committee, subject to availability of a clear vacancy within the prescribed 5% quota. It is further stipulated in the Office Memorandum, dated 5th May, 2003, that the maximum time a person’s name can be kept under consideration for offering compassionate appointment will be three years, subject to the conditions that the prescribed Committee has reviewed and certified the penurious condition of the applicant at the end of the first and the second year. 3. In the instant case, the case of the respondent has been considered only once on 28.07.2005. It was required to be reviewed for two years subject to availability of regular vacancies and on the basis of evaluation of the financial condition of the respondent’s family. The respondent approached the learned Central Administrative Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 497-HP-2006, seeking directions to the petitioners to offer him appointment on compassionate grounds. It was required to be reviewed for two years subject to availability of regular vacancies and on the basis of evaluation of the financial condition of the respondent’s family. The respondent approached the learned Central Administrative Tribunal by way of O.A. No. 497-HP-2006, seeking directions to the petitioners to offer him appointment on compassionate grounds. Case of the respondent before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, precisely was that his case for compassionate appointment has been considered only once and not for two more occasions as per the guidelines contained in Office Memorandum, dated 5th May, 2003. The learned Central Administrative Tribunal vide order, dated 27.05.2008, while allowing the Original Application has directed the petitioners to consider the case of the respondent for two more years by taking into account number of vacancies and if the selection committee finds the respondent No. 2 to be eligible, he be offered appointment on compassionate grounds. The petitioners were directed to keep the name of the respondent in their register for two more occasions for review and take appropriate action. Thus, there is no perversity or illegality in the order, dated 27.05.2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Shimla. 4. Consequently, there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is dismissed, so also the pending application(s), if any.