ORDER 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the Union of India against the order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal on 11.5.2016 in Review Application No. 200/00083/2014 (Union of India v. Ashish Bairagi) arising out of an order passed in Original Application No. 153/2012 (Ashish Bairagi v. Union of India). 2. The respondent has filed an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal claiming compassionate appointment and it was stated by him that his father was a Government servant and he died in harness. The Tribunal has disposed of Original Application No. 153/2012 filed by the applicant vide order dated 7.5.2014 with a direction to the non-applicant Union of India to reconsider the case of the applicant in light of the policy governing the field. The said order was passed on 7.5.2014 and thereafter review petition was preferred in the matter and the same was barred by limitation and therefore the Tribunal has dismissed the review petition preferred by the Union of India on 11.5.2016. 3. This Court has carefully gone through the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application as well as the order passed in Review Application. The Tribunal has arrived at a conclusion that while rejecting the candidature of the applicant no reasons have been assigned. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Union of India has argued before this Court that the case of the respondent has been considered twice but the same is not a fit case to be considered again. There is a document filed by the Union of India which is Annexure R-6 dated 14.12.2010 which deals with the Department of Posts. Paragraph No. 6(e) of the aforesaid document/ the executive instructions provide that Circle Reviewing Committee shall be considering the case of the candidates for grant of compassionate appointment thrice to the maximum. It also provides that in case it is not possible to offer engagement to the dependents of the deceased Government Servant due to the application of prescribed ceiling, the case may be considered again in the CRC Meetings of the next two years to the maximum, meaning thereby, that every case has to be considered thrice. It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner-Union of India that the case of the petitioner has not been considered thrice but has been considered twice only. It has been stated by learned counsel for the petitioner-Union of India that the case of the petitioner has not been considered thrice but has been considered twice only. Hence, in the considered opinion of this Court, no case is made out to interfere with the orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal has simply directed the Union of India to reconsider the case afresh and the same is also permissible in light of policy dated 14.12.2010. 5. The admission is declined. No order as to costs.