Anjana Mishra, J. – In the present writ application, the petitioner seeks to assail the order dated 13.12.2018 passed in O.A/050/01000/2018 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench Patna whereby and whereunder the petitioners claim for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected. The O.A applicant has prayed for a mandamus for commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground in place of his father who died on 16.8.2002 while serving as T.T.A in the office of S.D.E (Group) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Forbesganj (henceforth referred to as “BSNL”) in accordance with the circular for compassionate appointment contained in letter no. 14014/6/94/Estt.(D) dated 9.10.1998 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension (Department of Personnel and Training) Government of India, New Delhi. 2. The writ petitioner has further prayed for quashing the observation made in paragraph no.-7 of the order dated 20.11.2017 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna in O.A./050/00831/2016 by which the learned Tribunal ignored the judgment and order passed by the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and has erroneously observed as follows: – “We also note that the applicant got a score 56 which is above the cut-off. We may observe here that weightage system is a quantitative method of assessing indigence. Therefore, the applicant’s argument that weightage system cannot be applied in his case is not tenable.” 3. A further prayer has been made by the writ applicant for quashing the order dated 01.09.2018 passed by the Deputy General Manager, (Admn.), BSNL issued vide Letter No. Rectt/Relax-05/2005/66 by which the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment in pursuance of the order dated 20.11.2017 has been rejected. 4. The writ petitioner, Mahesh Kumar, being the son of Late Ram Narayan Sahu is the applicant herein, who was aged 17 years on the date of death of his father. Late Ram Narayan Sahu, who was working on the post of T.T.A. at Forbesganj in the office of the BSNL died on 16.08.2002 and accordingly, his widow Ram Kumari Devi made an application to the concerned authorities for employment of his son on compassionate grounds as she herself was unable to take up any employment. The said application dated 22.01.2003 has been marked as Annexure- P/2 and was received on 23.12.2004 in the office of the Chief General Manager, Telecom. The said application dated 22.01.2003 has been marked as Annexure- P/2 and was received on 23.12.2004 in the office of the Chief General Manager, Telecom. The records indicate that the same was put up for consideration before the High Power Committee of the BSNL in its 24th meeting held on 31.08.2009. The Committee, however, vide order dated 26.12.2009 recommended for the rejection of his case in the following words which is extracted herein under: – “The ex-officio expired on 18.08.2002 at the age of 44 years survived by his wife (age 45 years at present). One son and three daughter. The family pension is Rs. 3850/-+IDA and other terminal benefits were Rs. 3,44,886/-. The family is living in its own house. The son applied for compassionate ground appointment. The committee was of the view that only the widow can look after the whole family in a better way and she is also the first preference w.r.t. provision of the scheme for the purpose (In accordance with instructions of Department of Personnel and Training laid down in O.M. No. 14014/6/94-Estt.(D) dated 09.10.1998). The applicant (son) can self-sustain in view of age/education. Already the family has passed a considerable time since the death of the ex-official. Therefore, the request of the applicant son was recommended for rejection. However, the committee also recommended that the widow, if so desires, may apply a fresh for her own compassionate ground appointment.” 5. The said order of rejection was challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 262/2010 wherein it was contended that under the scheme for compassionate appointment, the dependent family members is spouse wife of the deceased or son and since she had requested that her only son be appointed on the compassionate ground, the rejection of his case was not in full consonance with the scheme for compassionate appointment issued under the Central Government Notification of DOPT OM dated 9.10.1998. The said contention was accepted by the Patna Bench of the Tribunal and the impugned orders were struck down and the respondents were directed to consider the case of the applicant afresh. In the said order, the CAT Bench has given a direction for considering the case of the petitioner in the light of the DOPT OM dated 09.10.2009 read with the declaration of the mother of the applicant (wife of the deceased) as contained in Annexures A/2 and A/3. In the said order, the CAT Bench has given a direction for considering the case of the petitioner in the light of the DOPT OM dated 09.10.2009 read with the declaration of the mother of the applicant (wife of the deceased) as contained in Annexures A/2 and A/3. The text of the order is quoted hereinunder. “Therefore, Annexure-R/1 and Annexure-A/4 are struck down, and the respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant afresh, in the light of the DOPT OM dated 09.10.2009, read with the declaration of the mother of the applicant (wife of the deceased) as at Annexure A/2 and A/3. The applicant may file a copy of this order, alongwith a copy of the OA before the Respondent no. 2 within a period of fifteen days from the date of issuance of a certified copy of this order.” 6. Pursuant to the aforementioned order, the petitioner again filed representation but the same was again rejected vide order dated 24.11.2011 passed by the Assistant General Manager (Estt.), BSNL in the following terms: – “(1) Whereas Sri Mahesh Kumar had filed a case vide OA No. 262/2010 before Hon’ble CAT Bench, Patna against the order dated 26.12.2009 through which the claim of the applicant for grant of compassionate appointment was rejected. (2) Whereas Hon’ble CAT Bench, Patna vide its order dated 26.08.2010 struck down the order dated 26.12.2009 with direction to the respondents to consider the case of the applicant afresh in the light of the DOPT OM dated 09.10.2009. (3) Whereas the representation of the applicant of Shri Mahesh Kumar was received in this office on 09.09.2010. (4) Whereas the case of the applicant was put up in the Circle High Power Committee dated 25.10.2010. The Circle High Power Committee considered the case of the applicant and it was decided that earlier this case was considered by the High Power Committee of BSNL H/Q, so this case may be forwarded to BSNL H/Q for consideration as per direction of Hon’ble CAT Bench, Patna. (5) Whereas the case of the applicant was forwarded to the BSNL H/Q along with Hon’ble CAT’s order to consider the case afresh. (6) Whereas the case of the applicant was sput up in the High Power Committee of BSNL H/Q as per direction of Hon’ble CAT Bench, Patna. (5) Whereas the case of the applicant was forwarded to the BSNL H/Q along with Hon’ble CAT’s order to consider the case afresh. (6) Whereas the case of the applicant was sput up in the High Power Committee of BSNL H/Q as per direction of Hon’ble CAT Bench, Patna. The case was examined in detail on all aspects by the High Power Committee keeping in the view the assets, liabilities of the family of the deceased official and overall assessment of the functional condition of the family. The committee did not consider the family to the living in penury and recommended for rejection of the request under provision of the scheme for the purpose (in accordance with instruction of DOPT OM No. 14014/6/94-Estt(D) dated 09.10.1998. (7) Whereas the order of HPC was convened to this office vide BSNL H/Q letter no. 273-2(27-Mahesh Kr.)/2011/Pers.IV dated 26.07.2011. Under the circumstances stated above, the claim of the applicant Sri Mahesh Kumar is hereby rejected.” 7. It is needful to mention here that while passing the aforementioned order, the authorities had noticed the order passed on 26.10.2010 passed in O.A. No. 262/2010 which mandated a fresh consideration “in the light of DOPT OM dated 09.10.2009 read with declaration of the widow mother at Annexure-2 and 3.” 8. However, the O.A. No. 655/2012 was disposed of vide order dated 27th of February, 2013 on the ground that the order of rejection had been passed on vague grounds. As such, it was set aside in the following terms: – “We find from the impugned order that the case is rejected keeping in view the “assets liabilities of the family and overall assessment of the financial condition of the family” which is quite vague. The first rejection was on the ground that the family is not indigent. However, it was provided that the widow may apply. The 2nd rejection is again on the ground that the family is not considered to be living in penury. However, no details are indicted as to why the family is not considered fit for grant of compassionate appointment. The recent DOPT OM of July 2012 has done away with the three times limit of consideration. The 2nd rejection is again on the ground that the family is not considered to be living in penury. However, no details are indicted as to why the family is not considered fit for grant of compassionate appointment. The recent DOPT OM of July 2012 has done away with the three times limit of consideration. As such, the respondents are directed to consider the matter afresh keeping in view the financial consideration of the family vis-à-vis other candidates who have been granted appointment on compassionate ground and number of vacancies available, and to pass a reasoned and speaking order giving the comparative parameters of assessment of such candidates, availability of vacancies from the date of making 1st application, within three months from the date of communication of this order.” 9. Another fresh consideration was again given in compliance of the judgment of the CAT, Patna Bench in O.A. No. 655 of 2012 dated 27.02.2013 and the case was again rejected by means of a reasoned order in the following terms : – “1. BSNL is following the Scheme of Compassionate Ground Appointment (CGA) issued by DoP&T vide O.M. No. 14014/6/94-Estt(D) dated 9.10.1998. The objective of this scheme is to grant appointment on compassionate ground to a dependent family member of a BSNL employee dying in harness or who is retired on medical ground thereby leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood, to relieve the family of BSNL employee concerned from financial destitution and to help him to get over the emergency. As per this scheme the family living in indigent condition and deserving immediate assistance from financial destitution, is eligible for Compassionate Ground Appointment. In order to bring uniformity in assessment of indigent condition of the family for offering Compassionate Ground Appointment weightage point system was issued by BSNL as per letter No. 273-18/2005-Pers-IV dated 27.06.2007. 2. The case of applicant for Compassionate Ground Appointment was considered by BSNL Corporate Office High Power Committee in its meeting and BSNL Corporate Office High Power Committee examined the case in detail on all aspects: ? Family pension is approx Rs. 9.071/ ? As per the existing practice, all the Compassionate Ground Appointment cases are first subjected to weightage point system. The cases which score 55 points and above are examined by a High Power Committee at BSNL Corporate Office. Family pension is approx Rs. 9.071/ ? As per the existing practice, all the Compassionate Ground Appointment cases are first subjected to weightage point system. The cases which score 55 points and above are examined by a High Power Committee at BSNL Corporate Office. The High Power Committee objectively assesses the merit of the case based upon the inputs/welfare report about the constitution of family and stage of settlement overall financial condition of the family and the fact of limited number of vacancies for compassionate Ground Appointment cases. ? The case of the applicant was considered by HPC in its meeting held in the year 2009 along with 122 cases (including case of applicant) in which 93 cases were approved by the committee. All the 93 approved cases were having points more than the points scored by the applicant. 3. Keeping in view the grown up children of deceased, education profile of the applicant, monthly pension support, their potential for self sustainment and also the limited number of vacancies in CGA quota which is offered to more needy candidates, the BSNL Corporate Office High Power Committee did not find the family of deceased to be living in indigent condition to offer compassionate ground appointment to the applicant and rejected the request under provisions of the scheme (in accordance with instructions of Department of Personnel & Training laid down in O.M. No. 14014 /6/94 Estt.(D) dated 09.10.1998) and weightage point system guidelines of BSNL No. 273-18/2005/Pers-IV dated 27.06.2007. 4. As per directive of Hon’ble CAT, Patna passed in OA No. 655/2012 on dtd. 27.02.2013 filed by Shri Mahesh Kumar S/o Late Ram Narayan Sahu, Ex-TTA under GMTD, Katihar, it is intimated here that vacancy position in CGA quota at the time of consideration of the case of applicant was 166 (one hundred sixty six) only. 5. In view of above, Competent Authority did not find the case of applicant justified for appointment on Compassionate Ground basis.” 10. 5. In view of above, Competent Authority did not find the case of applicant justified for appointment on Compassionate Ground basis.” 10. It appears that while the matter was under consideration before the BSNL, the petitioner approached the Tribunal in a contempt application alleging violation of the order dated 27.02.2013 passed in O.A. No. 655 of 2012 but the same was dismissed in view of the fact that on 04.03.2015 the petitioner’s case was considered by High Power Committee in its meeting held in the year 2009 in which 93 cases were approved but not that of the petitioner as he could not obtain comparable weightage points for the purpose of appointment. Since on comparative merits the petitioner could not get appointment, his case was rejected on 04.03.2015 and therefore, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna dismissed the contempt application on 05.02.2016. 11. The petitioner challenged the order dated 05.02.2016 dismissing the contempt application No. 118 of 2015 in C.W.J.C. No. 7577 of 2016 but the aforesaid application was dismissed with a liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order dated 04.03.2015 (Annexure-P-9/1) in an appropriate forum in accordance with law, which is extracted hereinunder: – “The challenge in the present petition is to an order dated 05.02.2016, whereby the contempt petition, filed by the petitioner for alleged violation of the order dated 27.02.2013 passed in Original Application NO. 655 of 2012 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, was dismissed. The Tribunal, in its order dated 27.02.2013, directed the respondents to consider the comparative parameters of assessment of the candidate for the purposes of appointment on compassionate ground within three months from the date of communication of the order. It is, thereafter, an order was passed on 04.03.2015, wherein the petitioner was considered by a High Power Committee in its meeting held in the year 2009 in which 93 cases were approved but not that of the petitioner herein as he could not obtain comparable weightage for the purpose of appointment. We do not find any merit in the present petition as after considering the comparative merits, an order was passed by the competent authority on 04.03.2015. We do not find any merit in the present petition as after considering the comparative merits, an order was passed by the competent authority on 04.03.2015. If aggrieved, the petitioner has to invoke its remedy as is available to the petitioner under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985, but no relief can be granted to the petitioner in a proceeding for contempt when the order passed by the Tribunal on 27.04.2013 stands complied with. In view of the said fact, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal in contempt proceeding. However, it shall be open to the petitioner to take recourse to the remedies available to the petitioner against the order dated 04.03.2015 in an appropriate forum in accordance with law.” 12. Undeterred by the series of rejections, the petitioner again approached the CAT, Patna Bench, Patna in O.A. 050/00831 of 2016 seeking the following reliefs: – “This application has been filed for the following reliefs : – (i) For issuance of an appropriate writ/writs, direction/directions for withdrawing the order dated 05.02.2016 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna in C.P. No. 050/00118/2015 (Arising out of OA No. 655/2012). (ii) For issuance of an appropriate direction/directions to the concern respondents for appointment of petitioner on compassionate ground under Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited as petitioner’s father was died on 16.08.2002 while serving of TTA in the office of SDE (Group), Bhart Sanchar Nigam, Forbesganj. (iii) For issuance of appropriate direction/directions to the concern respondents for consideration of the case of the petitioner, for compassionate ground, on the basis of order dated 27.02.2013 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna in OA No. 655/2013. (iv) For issuance of an appropriate direction to the concerned respondents for quashing of speaking order dated 04.03.2015 passed by Senior General Manager (H.R./Admin.) Bihar Circle, Patna by which the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment has been rejected, on erroneous consideration. (v) For grant of other relif/reliefs to which the petitioner may found entitled may grant as facts and circumstances of the case”. 13. The aforementioned O.A. is contested by the respondent- BSNL stating that the BSNL was following the scheme of compassionate appointment as issued by the DOPT OM dated 10.09.1998. (v) For grant of other relif/reliefs to which the petitioner may found entitled may grant as facts and circumstances of the case”. 13. The aforementioned O.A. is contested by the respondent- BSNL stating that the BSNL was following the scheme of compassionate appointment as issued by the DOPT OM dated 10.09.1998. It however, asserted that the weightage point system has been introduced to assess indigency and the petitioner’s indigency has been assessed thrice and found to be inadequate to deserve any re-consideration for his appointment on compassionate grounds. 14. The learned CAT Bench considered the case of the applicant noting that the applicant’s prayer was considered thrice favourably and the Tribunal had struck down the rejection orders in the first place stating that the rejection of the case of the petitioner was not consistent with the DOPT guidelines as the widow was competent to recommend her son’s name and therefore, the son’s case for consideration for appointment on compassionate grounds could not be negated. While proceeding to consider the case of the petitioner, the Tribunal has proceeded to reject the same on the specious grounds that the applicant’s argument that the weigtage system cannot be applied in his case is not tenable. However, the Tribunal again set aside the order dated 04.03.2015 and directed the respondents to re-consider the case of the petitioner within a period of four months from the receipt of the copy of the order. While disposing of the application, the Tribunal at paragraph- 5 has noted as hereinunder: – “This matter lies in a very narrow compass. The first rejection by the authorities of the applicant’s prayer was with liberty that widow could apply. The Tribunal struck it down that it was not consistent with the DOP&T guidelines and that the widow was competent to recommended her son’s name. Therefore, that has to be taken as the basis to decide whether the applicant’s case has merit or not.” 15. The respondents again re-considered the case of the petitioner in the light of the order of the CAT Patna Bench, Patna dated 20.11.2017 passed in O.A. No. 050/00831/2016 and by means of speaking order made a total reappraisal of the case of the petitioner and the Committee found the total weightage point obtained by the applicant to be only 52 as against the bench mark of 55 points. Since the petitioner’s weightage point was below 55 points, his case was rejected once again. The order dated 01.09.2018 is quoted hereunder: – “BSNL since its inception on 01.10.2000 follows the Compassionate Ground Appointment Policy based on Government of India instruction issued by DOPT, vide its OM No. 14014/94/6-Estt(D) dated 09.10.1998. The main objective of the policy is to grant appointment on compassionate ground to a dependent family member of a Government servant dying in harness or who is retired on medical ground, thereby leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood, to relieve the family of the Government servant concerned from financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. The number of vacancies is limited in Compassionate Ground Appointment quota and is offered to the candidate found more needy. 2. The case of the applicant has been considered in Circle HPC held in 02.08.2018 w.r.t. weightage point system. It is worth mentioning that in view of the advice of Hon’ble Chairman for Scheduled Tribes in the year 2006 a weightage point system was introduced in BSNL with the approval of BSNL Board in the year 2007 vide letter no. 273-18/2005-Pers- IV dated 27.06.2007 to bring uniformity in assessment of indigent condition of the family for offering Compassionate Ground Appointment under the overall policy/guidelines of DOP&T OM No. 14014/694 Estt(D) dated 09.10.1998. So as per the weightage point system the applicants scoring equal to or more than 55 points are prima facie treated as eligible”. 16. This led to another litigation before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna bearing O.A/050/01000/2018 dated 13.12.2018 seeking the following reliefs. “8(i) For issuance of an appropriate direction/directions for quashing the speaking order dated 01.09.2018 passed by Dy. General Manager (Admn.) (ii) For issuance of an appropriate direction/directions for appointment of petitioner on compassionate ground under Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited as petitioner’s father was die on 16.08.2002 while serving of T.T.A. in the office of S.D.E. (Group) Bharat Sanchar Nigam Forbesganj. (iii) For issuance of appropriate direction/directions to the concerned respondents for consideration of the case of the petitioner, for compassionate ground, on the basis of order dated 27.02.2013 passed by the learned Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna in O.A. No. 655 of 2013 and order dated 20.11.2017 passed by C.A.T. Patna in OA No. 050/0083/2016. (iii) For issuance of appropriate direction/directions to the concerned respondents for consideration of the case of the petitioner, for compassionate ground, on the basis of order dated 27.02.2013 passed by the learned Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna in O.A. No. 655 of 2013 and order dated 20.11.2017 passed by C.A.T. Patna in OA No. 050/0083/2016. (iv) for grant of other relief/reliefs to which the applicant may found entitled to in the facts and circumstances of case.” 17. The learned Tribunal considered the entire history of the litigation of the case and at paragraph -10, it appears that the learned counsel for the applicant had contested that he was having 56 points as awarded by the respondents but while re-considering, his point had been refused to only 52 points which was found to be below the bench mark of 55 points by the committee and thus, his case had been rejected by the respondents. It was the case of the applicant that the assessment vide the impugned order was not only against the directions issued by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 831/2016 but also erroneous and incorrect as the father of the applicant had died in harness on 16.08.2002 and he had applied for appointment on 28.09.2004 and, therefore, his case could have been considered in accordance with the CGA scheme which was invoked under OM dated 9th of October 1998. However, the respondents have been continuously rejecting his case and his application was never considered under the said scheme. 18. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant’s prayer for grant of relief was also based on the decision of the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh in the case of Bhupendra Batra vs. Union of India & Ors. in CWP No. 6173/CAT/2011 (O&M) decided on 05.10.2017, where it was contended that in an identical case which was decided by the Hon’ble High Court wherein the respondents were directed to consider the case of the writ petitioner in the light of the policy dated 09.10.1998, without adverting to the subsequent policy of the year, 2007. Therefore, the petitioner’s case also deserves similar consideration. Therefore, the petitioner’s case also deserves similar consideration. Thus, the main crux of the argument of the learned counsel is that the petitioner’s case is to be considered in the light of the policy of the year 1998 and not in accordance with the subsequent policy of 2007 which entails fixation of weightage point and its consideration vis-à-vis the bench mark fixed for such compassionate appointments. Heavy reliance has also been placed by the petitioner in the light of the judgment referred above and it has, thus, been submitted that the petitioner’s case deserves interference by this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 19. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the materials on record including the judgment impugned. The applicability of the policy of the weightage point system has been introduced in the year 2007, is the bone of contention between the petitioner and the respondent-BSNL. While the petitioner’s arguments rests on the ground that since the application was made in the year 2004 which could be determined and given consideration only in the light of the policy of the 1998, the respondent BSNL had clearly erred in applying the policy which was introduced much thereafter i.e. in the year 2007. It was vehemently contended that on four occasions, the tribunal had set aside the order passed against the petitioner and had directed the consideration of his case by the committee but time without number the respondents have taken into consideration the weightage point system as introduced in the year 2007 and had rejected his case taking the plea that the petitioner did not come within the bench mark fixed for such compassionate appointments as the degree of penury was measured by the bench point system alone. It was on the basis of determination of the bench points and the points as obtained by the concerned candidate for compassionate appointment that the vacancies were filled in the 5 per cent quota reserved for such compassionate appointments. 20. Learned counsel for the petitioner emphasized that such consideration could not be made in his case as he was an applicant much prior to the introduction of this scheme when no such bench points were fixed. He thus, submitted that his rejection order was wholly misconceived and it was for such reason that the tribunal had repeatedly set aside the orders. 21. He thus, submitted that his rejection order was wholly misconceived and it was for such reason that the tribunal had repeatedly set aside the orders. 21. Having considered such submissions, we would have found ourselves in agreement with such an arguments but for certain factors which have been noted by us in the earlier orders passed by the Tribunal and the consideration made by it as also the respondent- BSNL. We note that in the order dated 26.08.2010 passed in O.A. No. 262 of 2010, the Tribunal had disposed of the matter with a direction to the respondents to consider the case in the light of the DOPT OM dated 19.10.1998 which was followed by another order of rejection dated 24.11.2011 which was found to be “vague” as the case was rejected on the basis of “assets liabilities of the family and overall assessment of the financial condition of the family” and, thus, remitted back to the authorities for fresh consideration. The operative part of the order passed in OA. No. 665 of 2012 dated 27th of February, 2013 has already been quoted hereinabove but is reiterated to the extent as is relevant. “As such the respondents are directed to consider the matter afresh keeping in view the financial consideration of the family vis-a-vis other candidates who have been granted appointment on compassionate ground and number of vacancies available, and to pass a reasoned order and speaking order giving the comparative parameters of assessment of such candidates, availability of vacancies from the date of making 1st application, within three months from the date of communication of this order.” 22. In view of such direction, the respondents made a fresh consideration leading to order dated 4th of March, 2015 and after considering the case of the petitioner, the order rejecting his case was passed. In the said order, it was asserted that the BSNL is following the scheme of Compassionate Ground Appointment issued by DOP&T vide O.A 14014/6/94- Estt(d) dated 09.10.98. It was categorically averred in the said order that as per this scheme the family living in indigent condition and deserving immediate assistance from financial destitution is eligible for compassionate ground appointment in order to bring uniformity in assessment of indigent condition of the family for offering compassionate ground appointments. The weightage points system was issued by BSNL as per letter no. 273-18/2005-Pers-IV dated 27.06.2007. The weightage points system was issued by BSNL as per letter no. 273-18/2005-Pers-IV dated 27.06.2007. The reasons for the rejection have already been enumerated hereinabove as in the said order it was admitted that the petitioner’s family pension already being drawn by them which was approximately Rs. 9071/- and after having considered him the applicant was awarded 56 points in the light of the weightage point system the cases which scored 55 points and above were examined by the High Power Committee considering their financial condition in the light of the limited number of vacancies available and in all out of 122 cases, 93 cases were approved by the committee and all these 93 cases were having more points than the points scored by the applicant. Thus, his request was not considered. 23. In the counter affidavit filed by the BSNL before the Tribunal in this Court the BSNL has again averred that it is still following the scheme of compassionate ground appointment dated 09.10.1998. It was contended that the said scheme was meant to compensate the family dependent on the BSNL employee, who had died in harness leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood and to relief the said family of the BSNL employee from financial destitution and to get them over the emergency. The respondents have contended that in order to maintain uniformity in the assessment of indigent condition and on the advise of the Chairman, National Commission for scheduled Tribes with the Secretary Telecom and CMD, BSNL and keeping in view the standard guidelines of eligibility for appointment on compassionate grounds, the weightage point system was issued by BSNL as per letter dated 27.06.2007. This is clarified by the respondents to be only a system of assessment of eligibility of compassionate ground and not a new scheme as is being made out by the petitioner replacing the old scheme dated 09.10.1998. It is merely a parameter of determination of the comparative indigence of such applicants, who are facing financial emergency and it is on such determination as per weightage points that compassionate appointment is offered as per the existing vacancies. It is merely a parameter of determination of the comparative indigence of such applicants, who are facing financial emergency and it is on such determination as per weightage points that compassionate appointment is offered as per the existing vacancies. The respondents, thus, contended that as per existing practice, all applicants of compassionate ground appointments are first subjected to a first stage scrutiny as per the weightage point system and cases with those above 55 points are examined by the High Power Committee by the BSNL corporate office. At the second stage, the HPC assesses the merit of each case and based on their merit and welfare report and also after constitution of the family and stage of settlement vis-à-vis the fact of limited number of vacancies under CGA case which is laid down in DOPT dated /9/10/98 determines the case of the said applicants. The application of weightage point system is only to avoid any discrimination with other similarly situated candidates for compassionate ground appointments and not otherwise. 24. The application of weightage point system is only to avoid any discrimination with other similarly situated candidates for compassionate ground appointments and not otherwise. 24. In response to the said contention of the BSNL, the writ petitioner has filed his rejoinder wherein it has been contended that though the contention of the BSNL was that petitioner’s case was determined on the basis of weightage point system, the respondent authority in Annexure- P/10 which is letter dated 26.11.2015 issued from the office of the Chief Managing Director, BSNL, Bihar Division, Patna contending as such which is extracted hereinunder : – ,usDpj&10 Hkkjr lapkj fuxe fyfeVsM ¼Hkkjr ljdkj dk miØe½ dk;kZy; %& eq[; egkizcaèkd nwjlapkj fcgkj ifje.My iVuk izfr] lgk;d egkizcaèkd ¼iz'kklu½ dk;kZy; % eq[; egkizcaèkd nwjlapkj fcgkj ifjeaMy iVuk i=kad & fjØwVesUV@vkjñ Vhñ vkbZñ @2015 fnukad & 26-11-2015 fo"k; %& lwpuk ds vfèkdkj vfèkfu;e 05 ds rgr lwpuk nsus ds lacaèk esa Jh egs'k dqekj dk ekeykA lanHkZ%& vkidk i= la[;k & ,lñ Vhñ@vkjñ Vhñ vkbZñ] ,DV 2015@¼,eds½@52 fnukad & 6-10-2015 vkosnd }kjk ekaxh xbZ fcanqokj tkudkjh fuEu gSA lwpuk 1- Øe la[;k 01 ij ekaxh xbZ lwpuk ds lacaèk esa crk;k tkrk gS fd Jh egs'k dqekj us ekuuh; dSaV U;k;ky;] iVuk esa vius vuqdaik ds vkèkkj ij fu;qfDr ds fy, vks, uaŒ&65@2011 ls ekeyk nk;j dj j[ks FksA ekuuh; U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ij bl dk;kZy; }kjk Lihfdax vkMZj i=kad & Rectt/Relax-05/2005/Loose/13 fnukad 4-3-2015 dks tkjh fd;k tk pqdk gSA Lihfdax vkMZj esa buds vuqdaik lacafèkr tkjh lwpuk,W nh xbZ gSA bldh izfr Jh egs'k dqekj dks Hkh miyCèk djk nh xbZ gSA vr% bl lacaèk esa vkxs ;g dguk gS fd ekuuh; dSaV U;k;ky; ds vkns'kkuqlkj buds vuqdaik ds ekeys dks vks,e la[;k& 14014@6@1994 Estt (D) dated 9.10.1998 fnukad 9-10-1998 ds vuqlkj ifjeaMy lh,pihlh }kjk fopkj fd;k x;k Fkk ftles a Weightage Point ¼Hkkj vad½ dk dksbZ izkoèkku ugh gSA vr% Weightage Point dh x.kuk buds ekeys es ugha gqvk gSA 2- Øe la[;k 02 ij ekaxh xbZ tkudkjh vkosnd dks ugha nh tk ldrh gS D;ksafd ekaxh xbZ lwpuk ls vkosnd dk dksbZ lacaèk ugha gS rFkk ;g lwpuk ds vfèkdkj vfèkfu;e] 2005 ds ikjk&8 ds varxZr izdVhdj.k ls eqDr gSA g-@&vLi"V 25. It was, thus, submitted by the petitioner that this statement has not been controverted by the BSNL in their counter affidavit and, therefore, the case of the petitioner could not have been determined on the basis of weightage point system as the same could not have been made applicable retrospectively in the case of the petitioner. We, however, consider this to be unacceptable in view of the fact that the petitioner had applied in the year, 2004 and his case was forwarded vide letter from the Bihar Zone in the year 2005. It first came in for consideration in the year 2009 when the weightage point system had already been introduced by letter dated 27.06.2007. We further find that the petitioner had accepted the observation made by this Court in order dated 20.11.2017 and had not preferred a challenge to the same as on the said order at paragraph -7, the Court had observed as follows: – “We also note that the applicant got a score 56 which is above the cut-off. We may observe here that weightage system is a quantitative method of assessing indigence. Therefore, the applicant’s argument that weightage system cannot be applied in his case is not tenable.” 26. Thus, the petitioner having 56 points was above the bench mark of 55 points, and, therefore, the rejection of his case was not tenable and had, therefore, directed for reconsideration. This issue was settled at that point of time and was not challenged in the subsequent proceedings before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna. It was only after the rejection order passed by the CAT Bench in the subsequent O.A wherein the petitioner’s case was found to be below the bench mark of 55 points as having 52 points, that the writ petitioner has again come up in the present writ to contest the weightage point system. There is, thus, a fine line of distinction in the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, and the case of the present petitioner, who can be said to have acquiesced to the guidelines which were introduced in the policy of 1998 for determining the case of appointments on compassionate grounds. There is, thus, a fine line of distinction in the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, and the case of the present petitioner, who can be said to have acquiesced to the guidelines which were introduced in the policy of 1998 for determining the case of appointments on compassionate grounds. In this context, we have also referred to the prayer made by the petitioner in O.A. No. 831 of 2016 and we find that there was no challenge to the observation made in paragraph -7 of the order dated 20.11.2017 and, therefore, the learned Tribunal while deciding the case of the petitioner has categorically held in the impugned order at paragraph-12 which is extracted hereinunder: – “It is submitted that in response to the directions of this Tribunal the case of the applicant was reconsidered and vide speaking order dated 01.09.2018, the case of the applicant was regretted. The Committee has considered the case of the applicant by taking into family condition of the dependent members of the deceased employee as on 02.08.2018 and the applicant could obtained only 52 weightage point only which is below the bench mark point of 55 points. The applicability of the policy of weightage point system has been already decided by this Tribunal in its order dated 20.11.2017 and after considering the case of the applicant it was held that the widow recommended the applicant’s name for compassionate appointment, his claim remains equally worthy of consideration by the authority and with this observation, the Tribunal had directed to reconsider the case of the applicant. Accordingly, the case of the applicant was reconsidered by the Committee and the applicant was not found fit for recommendation.” 27. Further in the aforementioned order at page 115, the Tribunal has observed as follows: – “The submission of the applicant that weightage point system cannot be applied in his case, was already considered and rejected by this Tribunal in its earlier order dated 20.11.2017. Since the applicant has not challenged the said order and accepted the directions issued by the Tribunal for re-consideration of his case, we do not think appropriate to pass any order on this issue. Accordingly, the respondents have reconsidered the case and passed speaking order dated 01.09.2018. Thus, it is open for the applicant to submit that weightage point system is not applicable in his case.” 28. Accordingly, the respondents have reconsidered the case and passed speaking order dated 01.09.2018. Thus, it is open for the applicant to submit that weightage point system is not applicable in his case.” 28. We are also of the opinion that the Tribunal has rightly rejected the case of the applicant on this ground as once having acquiesced to the order dated 20.11.2017, it was not open to the petitioner to come around and rely on the earlier contention that the weightage point system was not applicable in his case. Coming to the question as to whether the petitioner can be said to have acquiesced to the order dated 20.11.2017. We must observe that the question of acquiescence can only be determined on the basis of factual aspect of each case. The word “ Acquiescence” has been defined in the Lexicon as follows: – “A resting satisfied with or submission to an existing state of things. The term implies both knowledge and power to contract on the part of the person acquiescing “They are compelled to acquiesce in a Government which they did not regard as just”. (De Quincey) Acquiescence is the common element in a somewhat indefinite group of equitable estoppels, constituted by the fact that the person entitled has, as it is said, “slept upon his rights” and by his conduct at the time of a breach of them, or subsequently thereto, has, with full knowledge, both of his own rights and of the acts which infringe them, led that person responsible for the infringement to believe that he has waived or abandoned his rights. The terms “laches” “acquiescence” “standing by” and “delay” are frequent associated together, and they do not appear to be capable of distinct definition. (Ency. Of the laws of England) 29. It appears from the records of this case that after the order dated 20.11.2017, the petitioner went back to the department for re-consideration of his case in the light of the order dated 20.11.2017 wherein the case of the petitioner at paragraph- 7 has been held to be untenable for consideration in terms of weightage point system. Yet the tribunal had sent back the case for reconsideration as at that point of time the petitioner was said to have 56 weightage points as against the bench mark of 55 fixed on the relevant date. Yet the tribunal had sent back the case for reconsideration as at that point of time the petitioner was said to have 56 weightage points as against the bench mark of 55 fixed on the relevant date. This aspect was not challenged in the subsequent OA, copy of which has been produced before us. Thus, we find that in the subsequent OA, the plea of weightage point system was given a go-bye and is being reagitated in the present writ application. The OA No. 831 of 2013 nowhere refers to paragraph- 7 of the earlier order dated 20.11.2017. Thus, the arguments as advanced by the petitioner before us cannot be accepted and we hold that the weightage point system which was adopted in the case of the petitioner for determining his indigent status was not unreasonable so as to warrant interference by this Court on this score. 30. We have, however, considered the manner in which the weightage point system has been considered and awarded to the writ petitioner. In the year, 2017, the petitioner had scored 56 points which was about the cut-off of 55 fixed by the authorities at the time the order dated 04.03.2015 was passed. It appears from Annexure- P/11 to the writ application (Page 84) that the consideration accorded was in the following manner which is apparent from table dated 06.07.2009. F.No. 268-35/2007-Pers-IV Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (Pers-IV Section) Case of Shri Mahesh Kumar, S/o late Shri Ram Narayan Sahu, Ex – TTA under GMTD Katihar Srl File No/ Name of circle Name of employee/ Ex-designa- tion Death/ Med Inv. (age) Name of applicant/ Relation with ex-employer/ qualification and post applied FAMILY COMPOSI- TION Name/ Relation/ Age/ Employment Status Pension Terminal Benefits Income of Earning Members Points scored Negative Points Scored Net points scored 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 268- 35/2007- Pers Bihar Ram Narayan Sahu, Ex– TTA Death 16.08.2002 (44 years) Mahesh Kumar Son/ 06.01.1984 (25 years) Intermed- iate Group-D 1 Ram Kumar Devi/wife/ 45/une mp. 2 Mahesh Kumar/son/ 25 applicant 3 Alka/ daughter/ 18/minor 4 Priyanka/ daughter/ 15/minor 5 Pragati/ daughter/ 09/minor Rs. 3850+ DA Rs. 3,44, 886/ - Dep. Wtge 40 Pension – 04 Left Svce -15 App. Wtge-0 T.B. - 07 Accom -1 56 31. 2 Mahesh Kumar/son/ 25 applicant 3 Alka/ daughter/ 18/minor 4 Priyanka/ daughter/ 15/minor 5 Pragati/ daughter/ 09/minor Rs. 3850+ DA Rs. 3,44, 886/ - Dep. Wtge 40 Pension – 04 Left Svce -15 App. Wtge-0 T.B. - 07 Accom -1 56 31. However, in the subsequent consideration as indicated in Annexure- P/14 which is dated 1st of September, 2018, the petitioner’s score has been determined at 52 as is in the Chart indicated hereinunder: – “As per the weightage point system, case of the applicant has been examined and the applicant has scored only 52 points as the break up of points given below: (i) Weightage points Points (g) Dependent weightage 30 (h) Basic family Pension NIL (i) Left Out Service 15 (j) Applicant weightage (widow seeking CGA) NIL (k) Terminal benefits 07 (l) Accommodation NIL Total 52 (ii) Negative Weightage point if any (income of spouse/other than spouse/belate requests Total 52 CGA case of Sri Mahesh Kumar has already been considered by the Circle High Power Committee as detailed below. SL.No. Chances in CHPC & Date Remarks 1. 1st chance in HPC at Corporate Office, New Delhi on dtd. 31/08/2009 The CGA case was rejected by BSNL H/q by intimating that “the applicant (son) can self sustain in view of age/ education and already the family has passed a considerable time since the death of ex-official”. 2. 2nd chance in HPC at Corporate  office, New Delhi in compliance  of the Hon’ble CAT Bench; Patna  in OA No. 262/2010 order dtd. 26-08-2010 The CGA case was rejected 2nd time by BSNL H/q High Power Committee (Intimated vide letter NO. 2782 (27- Mahesh Kumar)/2011/pers.’IV dated 26.07.2011). The committee did not consider the family to be living in penury and indigent condition. 3. 3rd chance-in compliance of  judgement of Hon’ble CAT Patna  in OA No. 655/2011 dated  21/03/2013 again considered by  High Power Committee afresh  at Corporate office, New Delhi The CGA case was rejected by the competent authority in view of that the case of applicant is not justified for CGA and the same was intimated to the applicant through Speaking order vide this office letter no. Rectt/ Relax-05/2005/Loose/13 dated 04.03.2015. 4. Rectt/ Relax-05/2005/Loose/13 dated 04.03.2015. 4. 4th chance- in CHPC on  02/08/2018 by Circle HPC in  compliance of Hon’ble/CAT  bench Patna order passed in OA  No. OA/050/00831/2016 dated  20/11/2017 where in it was ordered that the applicant case deserve consideration once, more and earlier speaking order dated 04/03/2015 was quashed. The committee found the total weightage point obtained by the applicant is 52 only which is below the bench mark of 55 points. Therefore, the committee is opined to “reject” the case for appointment on compassionate ground under relaxation of normal recruitment rules. Keeping in view of above facts and findings, the request of Sri Mahesh Kumar to appoint him under compassionate ground in BSNL cannot be acceded to. Hence the case is closed. The issues with approval of the competent authority.” 32. It appears in the subsequent scoring, no marks have been afforded in the category basic family pension as on that date the petitioner’s family was drawing a family pension above 9000/- and thus, his score came down to 52 which was less than the bench mark of 55 fixed by the respondents for treating any candidate as eligible. 33. We thus, find that re-determination of the petitioner’s case is not reasonable to the extent that the petitioner has been an applicant from the year 2004 and when even on consideration of the weightage point formula as par the 1998 circulars, the petitioner had secured 56 points which was above the bench mark fixed at 55, the petitioner ought to have been considered at that very point of time rather than subject him to a further determination in the year 2018, on which date the petitioner fell below the bench mark by obtaining 52 points only. We, therefore, deprecate the action of the respondents in dealing with the issue in the manner that they have been delaying the consideration of such cases and if the petitioner was eligible as per the then extant guidelines in the year 2009, the authorities ought to have considered his case in the light of the existent vacancies. 34. However, in the instant case, we also find that the petitioner cannot claim any relief as an indigent person in the present facts and circumstances of the case, as the family is already drawing a pension of Rs. 9000/- for its sustenance and has survived the financial strain with the passage of time. 34. However, in the instant case, we also find that the petitioner cannot claim any relief as an indigent person in the present facts and circumstances of the case, as the family is already drawing a pension of Rs. 9000/- for its sustenance and has survived the financial strain with the passage of time. It is well settled that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, and, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that no relief can be granted to the petitioner at this stage. The prayer as made out in the present writ application is declined. The order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 13.12.2018 passed in O.A./050/01000/- 2018 is upheld. 35. With the aforesaid observation, the writ application stands consigned.