ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directed to quash the order dated 17.12.2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Circuit Bench, Ranchi in O.A. No. 051/00190/17 whereby and whereunder the decision taken by the respondent authority vide order dated 07.09.2016 by which the claim of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected, declined to interfere with by dismissing the original application. 3. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ petition based upon the application filed before the learned Tribunal is required to be referred herein which reads as under; 3.1. The petitioner states that father of the petitioner was working as sub-postmaster at Mirja Chowki, Sub Post office and in course of employment father of the petitioner died in harness on 21.09.1996 and as such petitioner being the dependent submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 03.01.1997 which was kept pending and thereafter after bifurcation of the Jharkhand State the claim of the compassionate appointment made by the petitioner was rejected by letter dated 07.10.2013 on the sole ground that married son is not treated as dependent without mentioning the merit points secured by the petitioner. 3.2. The petitioner had filed O.A. No. 051/00096/2014 before the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal and as a matter of fact the said O.A. has been allowed with a direction to respondents to consider the case of the petitioner again in the light of bare prevalent guideline and circular in the next circle relaxation committee meeting with a minding that there cannot be a distinction between a married son and a married daughter after coming into force of Hindu Succession Act, 2005 as Class-1 heirs and as per the letter dated 14.01. 2015 the Government of India, Ministry of Communication and I.T., Department of Post issued a circular to the effect that a married son can also be considered for compassionate appointment provided he was dependent on the parents for livelihood and of course, if he fulfils other required eligibility criteria. 3.3. 2015 the Government of India, Ministry of Communication and I.T., Department of Post issued a circular to the effect that a married son can also be considered for compassionate appointment provided he was dependent on the parents for livelihood and of course, if he fulfils other required eligibility criteria. 3.3. That without considering the merit points as possessed by the petitioner at the time of the filing of the application for compassionate appointment i.e. in the year 1997 the Postal Department had considered the merit point of the petitioner as 46 out of 115 and stated that last selected candidates in P.A./SA, Postman and MTS Cadre were 64/115, 85/115 and 87/115 and rejected the application in term of order dated 07.09.2016. 3.4. When it came to the knowledge of the petitioner that merit points were not calculated by the Circle Relaxation Committee (CRC) then petitioner sought an information under R.T.I. Act and it came to know that merit point was calculated in view of the new application dated 05.03.2011 instead of the old application for the compassionate appointment dated 03.01.1997 then the petitioner has submitted representation dated 13.09.2016 enclosing application dated 06.08.2016 and 21.10.2016 respectively to consider his claim. 3.5. The petitioner had again moved to the Hon’ble CAT in O.A. No. 051/00190/17 against the order dated 07.09.2016 with a ground that postal authorities had not considered the application dated 03.01.1997 as per policy existed on that time rather passed the impugned order 07.09.2016 as per new application dated 05.03.2011 without considering the earlier order passed by the CAT dated 09.11.2015 in O.A. No.051/00096/2014 order is against the principal of natural justice and is utter violation of existing rules and regulation of postal department and also violative of Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India whereas CRC had considered the vacancy of the year 2015-16 when there is gross laches on the part of postal department for not considering the existing vacancy in the year 1997-98 when the application was made and rejected the claim only on the basis of the less point secure by the petitioner in the year 2016. 3.6. 3.6. When the matter was kept pending till the year 2013 without any enquiry and progress on the application dated 03.01.1997 and the 46 points has been computed only in the year 2016 on new application obtained on 05.03.2011 whereas in the application dated 13.09.2016 petitioner had calculated about the merit point computed by the Circle Relaxation Committee as well as merit point required to be consider by the CRC and instead of 46 points petitioner had obtained 78 points but no heed has been taken for the appointment of the petitioner then the petitioner had filed O.A. No. 051/00190/17 and the Hon’ble Tribunal has been pleased to dismissed the said application by order dated 17.12.2018 on the sole ground that petitioner had only 46 points out of 115 points which is less than the last cut-off merit points hence this writ petition has been filed. 4. It is evident from the factual aspect that the appellant has made application for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate ground on the basis of the fact that the father of the writ petitioner was working under the respondent and had died in harness on 21.09.1996. As such, application was filed for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate ground on the basis of the scheme in vogue in the year 1996. 5. It further appears that the claim was rejected on previous occasion also by way of communication dated 07.10.2013 on the ground that the writ petitioner was found to be married son which occasioned the writ petitioner to file original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal being OA No./051/00096/2014. The learned Tribunal vide order dated 09.11.2015 directed the respondents to consider the case of the appellant in the light of the latest circular of Government of India, Ministry of Communication, IT Department of Posts dated 14.01.2015 by which the married son can also be considered for appointment provided he was dependent on the parents for his livelihood. 6. The learned Tribunal vide order dated 09.11.2015 directed the respondents to consider the case of the appellant in the light of the latest circular of Government of India, Ministry of Communication, IT Department of Posts dated 14.01.2015 by which the married son can also be considered for appointment provided he was dependent on the parents for his livelihood. 6. Accordingly, the respondents have considered the case of the writ petitioner but his claim was regretted vide decision dated 07.09.2016 on the basis of the fact that the requirement as per the prevailing guidelines as on 14.01.2015 was to assess the suitability / eligibility of the candidate by awarding point, in course thereof, the writ petitioner had secured 46 points out of 115 points whereas the last selected candidate in PA/ SA, Postman and MTS cadre is 64/115, 85/115 and 87/115 points respectively. 7. The writ petitioner being aggrieved with the said order dated 07.09.2016 has again approached the learned Tribunal by filing the original application being OA /051/00190/2017 which is the subject matter of the present writ petition, assailing the said order inter-alia on the ground that the consideration which was given by the respondents by awarding points was absolutely as wrong process, since, in the year 1996 there was no such provision as available in the scheme prevailing in the year 1996. 8. The learned Tribunal has declined to interfere with the order dated 07.09.2016 against which the present appeal has been filed by issuing the jurisdiction conferred to this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. Mr. Birendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner has submitted that the death since had occurred in the year 1996-97 i.e. on 21.09.1996 and as such the consideration which was given based upon the circular of the year 2015 is completely a misconceived decision of the authority concerned, since, death had occurred in the year 1996-97, hence, the scheme which was prevailing in the year 1996-97 ought to have been taken the basis of consideration for the claim of the writ petitioner but having not done so, therefore, the respondents have committed gross illegality in rejecting the claim of the writ petitioner. 10. 10. It has been submitted that the aforesaid fact has not been appreciated by the Tribunal while declining to interfere with the impugned order, hence, the same suffers from infirmity, as such not sustainable in the eyes of law. 11. Per contra, Mr. Abhijeet Kumar Singh, leanred Central Government Counsel appearing for the respondents while defending the order passed by the learned Tribunal has submitted that it is not available for the writ petitioner to take the ground that the scheme of 1996 ought to have been taken into consideration which is absolutely incorrect for the two reasons at least, firstly that it is the writ petitioner who had not chosen to approach the Court of law immediately after the demise of the bread earner i.e. the father, rather he had chosen to approach the Court of law some times in the year 2013 which is after seventeen years from the date of demise of the bread earner, secondly the issue of taking recourse of the scheme of 1996 is not available to be taken by the writ petitioner, since in the earlier round of litigation the writ petitioner himself had challenged the order passed by the respondent dated 07.10.2013 and the learned Tribunal while disposing of the said original application vide order dated 09.11.2015 directed the respondent to reconsider the case of the writ petitioner and in terms thereof the case was reconsidered in the light of the scheme prevailing as on the date when the learned Tribunal had passed the order. 12. It has been contended that since, the appellant has accepted the said order and has approached to the authority concerned also based upon which the case of the writ petitioner had been considered but he has not been found to be meritorious on the basis of the allocation of points as per the scheme prevailing on the date when the learned Tribunal had passed the order i.e. on 09.11.2015. 13. Learned Central Government Counsel based upon the said submission has submitted that since, the respondents have considered the case of the petitioner, subject to availability of 5% vacancy as per the scheme, but he has been found to obtain 46 points out of 115 points which is lesser than the last selected candidate in PA/ SA, Postman and MTS cadre which is 64/115, 85/115 and 87/115 respectively. 14. 14. Thus it is not a case where the case of the petitioner has not been considered, rather it has been considered and the petitioner has been found to be not suitable and hence, the decision has been taken by the authority by regretting the claim of the writ petitioner. The learned Tribunal by taking note of all these facts declined to interfere with the impugned order which cannot be said to suffer from any error. 15. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the finding recorded by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal in the impugned order. This Court before examining the legality and propriety of the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal deem it fit and proper to refer the proposition of law so far the appointment of compassionate ground is concerned. Reference may be made to the case of Sushma Gosain & Ors. vs. Union of India, reported in (1989) 4 SCC 468 , “9. We consider that it must be stated unequivocally that in all claims for appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread earner in the family. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such case pending for years. If there is no suitable post for appointment supernumerary post should be created to accommodate the applicant.” Similarl, in MGB Gramin Bank vs. Chakrawarti Singh reported in (2014) 13 SCC 583 , “6. Every appointment to public office must be made by strictly adhering to the mandatory requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. An exception by providing employment on compassionate grounds has been carved out in order to remove the financial constraints on the bereaved family, which has lost its breadearner. Mere death of a government employee in harness does not entitle the family to claim compassionate employment. The competent authority has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee and it is only if it is satisfied that without providing employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis, that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. More so, the person claiming such appointment must possess required eligibility for the post. More so, the person claiming such appointment must possess required eligibility for the post. The consistent view that has been taken by the Court is that compassionate employment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, as it is not a vested right. The Court should not stretch the provision by liberal interpretation beyond permissible limits on humanitarian grounds. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such a case pending for years.” 16. It is thus evident from the settled position of law so far as the appointment on compassionate ground is concerned that such appointment is in the teeth of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, however, the respective State within the meaning of Article 12, by way of beneficial measure has come out with the scheme time to time so that the difficulty which is to be faced by dependents of the deceased family due to demise of employee be taken care of and the dependents may not be subjected to starvation. 17. It is further evident that the basic object of appointment on compassionate ground is to provide immediate relief to the bereaved family and as such the diligence is to be shown by the claimant to approach the concerned authority / Court of law within a reasonable period so that the very purpose of appointment on compassionate ground be achieved. Simultaneously, it is also incumbent upon the respondents who is to take decision at an earlier date without any undue delay so that the basic object of appointment on compassionate ground be obtained by providing appointment on compassionate ground subject to suitability as per the prevailing scheme. 18. This Court is now proceeding to examine the factual aspects of the given case. 19. The admitted position herein is that the father of the writ petitioner died on 21.09.1996. The further admitted case of the appellant is that even though the father had died in the year 1996-97 i.e. on 21.09.1996 but for the first time the Court of law was approached in the year 2014 by filing original application being OA /051/00096/2014. 19. The admitted position herein is that the father of the writ petitioner died on 21.09.1996. The further admitted case of the appellant is that even though the father had died in the year 1996-97 i.e. on 21.09.1996 but for the first time the Court of law was approached in the year 2014 by filing original application being OA /051/00096/2014. However, it has been submitted that the application was made immediately after the demise of his father but it is admitted fact that the writ petitioner had taken no endeavour even accepting the fact that the application was filed in the year 1996-97 and if there is no decision on the part of the respondent so as to seek a command upon the concerned respondent from the competent Court having its jurisdiction. But only in the year 2014 the learned Tribunal was approached by filing original application being OA /051/00096/2014. 20. The writ petitioner has claimed that his application ought to have been considered on the basis of the 1996 scheme but what was the provision contained in the 1996 scheme, it is not known to the learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, since, it has been submitted, in course of argument by the leaned counsel appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, that he has not gone through the scheme of 1996. Therefore, the same was not brought on record before the learned Tribunal as also before this Court. As such, the question would be that when the scheme of 1996 which is the argument advanced for consideration to be based upon the scheme of 1996 itself is not known to the writ petitioner then how such argument can be made that the case of the writ petitioner is to be considered on the basis of the 1996 circular. 21. Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner is also not sure as to whether there was any circular in the year 1996-97 or not, since, no pleading to that effect has been made in the original application or in this writ petition. 22. Further, it is the admitted case of the writ petitioner that while he had filed the original application being OA /051/00096/2014 before the learned Tribunal, he has sought for a direction for consideration of his case by assailing the order dated 07.10.2013 by which the claim of the writ petitioner was rejected. 23. 22. Further, it is the admitted case of the writ petitioner that while he had filed the original application being OA /051/00096/2014 before the learned Tribunal, he has sought for a direction for consideration of his case by assailing the order dated 07.10.2013 by which the claim of the writ petitioner was rejected. 23. The learned Tribunal while disposing of the said original application vide order dated 09.11.2015 has commanded the respondents to reconsider the case of the writ petitioner and in terms thereof the case was reconsidered in the light of the scheme prevailing as on 14.01.2015. 24. It further appears that the respondents had considered the case of the writ petitioner on the basis of the latest circular of the Government of India, Ministry of Communication, IT Department of Posts dated 14.01.2015 as which the writ petitioner was not found to be meritorious in comparative assessment with the other candidates for consideration for appointment on compassionate ground, since, the writ petitioner had secured 46 points out of 115, which is lesser than the last secured points in P.A./ S.A. Postman and MTS cadre which is 64/115 so far as PA/SA cadre is concerned and 85/115 so far as postman cadre is concerned and 87/115 in MTS cadre is concerned. 25. Now the writ petitioner has questioned the decision of the authority that no such decision ought to have been taken on the basis of the latest circular dated 14.01.2015. 26. The question arises that when on the behest of the writ petitioner only the learned Tribunal has passed the order for reconsideration of the case of the writ petitioner by passing an order on 09.11.2015 by directing to consider the case of the applicant in the light of the latest circular of the Government of India, Ministry of Communication, IT Department of Posts dated 14.01.2015 then how the petitioner can claim that his case has not been decided on merit. The said order has been accepted by the writ petitioner and on consideration of his claim he has not found to be meritorious in comparison to the other simultaneous placed claimants. 27. It is thus admitted that the basis of consideration of the case of the writ petitioner by the respondents which culminated into the decision dated 07.09.2016 is the order passed by the learned Tribunal dated 09.11.2015 in OA/051/00096/2014. 27. It is thus admitted that the basis of consideration of the case of the writ petitioner by the respondents which culminated into the decision dated 07.09.2016 is the order passed by the learned Tribunal dated 09.11.2015 in OA/051/00096/2014. Hence, now it is not available for him to question the aforesaid decision which has been acted upon by him without assailing the same before the higher forum. 28. This Court after having discussed the aforesaid fact and taking into consideration the very object and spirit and the position of law so far as appointment be provided on compassionate ground, which is in the teeth of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, the same if provided after considerable delay, the very object and spirit of the aforesaid appointment will be said to be frustrated, is of the view that herein the admitted fact is that the death occurred on 21.09.1996 and for the first time the writ petitioner has approached the Tribunal in the year 2014 i.e. after a lapse of seventeen years and as of now it is twenty-seven years from the date of death. 29. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgement of Central Coalfields Ltd. vs. Parden Oraon, reported in (2021) 16 SCC 384 has come up with a view in a factual position that the appointment directed to be given after a lapse of nine years has been quashed and set aside, reference in this regard is to be made to para-9 of the judgement. “9. We are in agreement with the High Court that the reasons given by the employer for denying compassionate appointment to the respondent's son are not justified. There is no bar in the National Coal Wage Agreement for appointment of the son of an employee who has suffered civil death. In addition, merely because the respondent is working, her son cannot be denied compassionate appointment as per the relevant clauses of the National Coal Wage Agreement. However, the respondent's husband is missing since 2002. Two sons of the respondent who are the dependants of her husband as per the records, are also shown as dependants of the respondent. It cannot be said that there was any financial crisis created immediately after the respondent's husband went missing in view of the employment of the respondent. However, the respondent's husband is missing since 2002. Two sons of the respondent who are the dependants of her husband as per the records, are also shown as dependants of the respondent. It cannot be said that there was any financial crisis created immediately after the respondent's husband went missing in view of the employment of the respondent. Though the reasons given by the employer to deny the relief sought by the respondent are not sustainable, we are convinced that the respondent's son cannot be given compassionate appointment at this point of time. The application for compassionate appointment of the son was filed by the respondent in the year 2013 which is more than 10 years after the respondent's husband had gone missing. As the object of compassionate appointment is for providing immediate succour to the family of a deceased employee, the respondent's son is not entitled for compassionate appointment after the passage of a long period of time since his father has gone missing.” 30. This Court in the entirety of facts and circumstances, is of the view that it is not a fit case to exercise the power of judicial review by issuance of writ of certiorari by quashing and setting aside the order passed by the learned Tribunal dated 17.12.2018. 31. Accordingly the instant writ petition stands dismissed.