ORDER : 1. Feeling aggrieved by order dated 26.09.2024 passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in Original Application No. 216/2020, whereby directions have been given by learned Tribunal to the Union of India (Department of Posts) to reconsider the case of applicant for appointment on compassionate ground in the next meeting of Circle Relaxation Committee, the instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioners. 2. Facts, which are relevant for the purpose of adjucation of the dispute involved in the instant writ petition, are that the respondent filed Original Application before learned Tribunal contending therein that his father late Shri Mahaveer Prasad Sharma was holding the post of Mail Guard, Railway Mail Service Kota in the office of Senior Superintendent of Railway Mail Services, JP Division, Jaipur. However, father of respondent expired on 29.11.2017, while he was in service and the sudden death of sole bread earner in the family has left the entire family in grave financial crisis. It was further submitted by the respondent that his mother had already expired much earlier to the death of father. Under these circumstances, he filed an application for seeking compassionate appointment as per the Scheme prevailing in Department of Posts. However, his application was rejected on the ground that the Circle Relaxation Committee had although considered the application as per the marking scheme prevailing in the Department, yet the respondent could secure only 38 points against much higher points secured by other candidates to whom compassionate appointment was offered. 3. The respondent in his Original Application submitted that the consideration made by Circle Relaxation Committee was arbitrary and in fact the scheme was not appreciated in correct manner. Points awarded to the respondent were in total non-consideration of the prevailing circumstances in as much as that the family pension admissible to the sister of the respondent was only for a limited period i.e. till her marriage and the income of brother of the respondent was also hardly Rs.4,000/- per month, which was negligible and could not have been taken into consideration for denying compassionate appointment to the respondent. Hence, he prayed for allowing the Original Application to grant him compassionate appointment in place of his deceased father. 4. Hence, he prayed for allowing the Original Application to grant him compassionate appointment in place of his deceased father. 4. The petitioner-Department filed reply to the Original Application and categorically denied the allegations and defended the action of the Department by stating that marking system while considering the applications for seeking compassionate appointment, is quite transparent and justifiable. The Circle Relaxation Committee duly appointed for considering the cases of compassionate appointment has taken into consideration the number of vacancies for compassionate appointment along with comparative assessment of financial conditions and liabilities of the respective families of the deceased and after due comparison of different applications, marks were fairly awarded to different applicants, where the respondent could not secure proper marks so as to get benefit of compassionate appointment. Hence, there was no infirmity in the action of the petitioner-Department and therefore, a request was made to reject the Original Application filed by the respondent. 5. After examining the record and hearing the arguments of both the sides, learned Tribunal disposed of the Original Application vide order dated 26.09.2024 with the direction to the petitioner-Department to reconsider the case of the applicant for compassionate appointment in the next meeting of Circle Relaxation Committee keeping in mind the observations made in earlier part of order. That apart, learned Tribunal has also made observations with regard to whimsical and fanciful consideration made by the petitioner-Department while giving benefit of compassionate appointment to different candidates. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that while passing the impugned order dated 26.09.2024, the learned Tribunal has transgressed its jurisdiction while giving direction to reconsider the matter of compassionate appointment of the respondent as well as in making adverse comment over the functioning of the petitioner-Department, so far as it relates to granting compassionate appointment to the dependents of deceased government servant. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there were no allegation of malafide and bias in the Original Application, hence there was no occasion to interfere in the policy matter prevailing in the petitioner-Department for considering the cases of compassionate appointment. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that the observations made in Para 9 of order dated 26.09.2024 by learned Tribunal with regard to exercising powers to grant compassionate appointment in whimsical and fanciful manner, were also unwarranted and uncalled for in the facts and circumstances of the case. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also submitted that the observations made in Para 9 of order dated 26.09.2024 by learned Tribunal with regard to exercising powers to grant compassionate appointment in whimsical and fanciful manner, were also unwarranted and uncalled for in the facts and circumstances of the case. 9. We have examined the record and heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 10. We find that after hearing both the parties and examining the record, learned Tribunal has simply given directions for reconsideration of the candidature of the respondent for appointment on compassionate ground in the light of the fact that the family pension which was being received by sister of the respondent was not for the entire life but only till the time she remains unmarried and while awarding marks with regard to quantum of income, the Circle Relaxation Committee has not properly considered the aforesaid points. That apart, it was also not properly considered by the Circle Relaxation Committee that elder brother of the respondent was of unsound mind and was barely earning Rs. 4000/- per month. 11. We find that directions for reconsideration in the aforesaid facts and circumstances cannot be said to be suffering from any jurisdictional error on the part of the learned Tribunal; nor such directions for reconsideration would, in any manner, prejudice rights or powers of the petitioner-Department. 12. It is settled preposition of law that while exercising writ jurisdiction against the order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, this Court does not sit as an Appellate Court and can make interference only on limited ground, where the order passed by the learned Tribunal is suffering from lack of jurisdiction or is patently illegal or the findings arrived at by learned Tribunal are manifestly perverse and devoid of any logic. The petitioner-Department has utterly failed to point out any patent illegality or infirmity or even jurisdictional error in the aforesaid directions given by learned Tribunal. 13. As regards to observations made by learned Tribunal in Para 9 of the order dated 26.09.2024 are concerned, we find that learned Tribunal is totally justified in raising question with regard to the arbitrary application of scheme of compassionate appointment, contrary to the fundamental purpose for which the scheme was framed. 13. As regards to observations made by learned Tribunal in Para 9 of the order dated 26.09.2024 are concerned, we find that learned Tribunal is totally justified in raising question with regard to the arbitrary application of scheme of compassionate appointment, contrary to the fundamental purpose for which the scheme was framed. During arguments before the learned Tribunal, it was pointed out that the petitioner-Department is considering the cases where death of deceased employee has taken place in the year 2005-2006 and even in the year 2000. Needless to mention here that the sole purpose of framing the scheme of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate relief to the family in dire need of financial support, which has suffered on account of sudden death of sole bread earner in the family. Scheme of compassionate appointment is not an alternate source of employment and is meant only for emergent help to the family in need. Considering cases of the year 2000, 2005-2006 would certainly frustrate basic purpose for which the scheme was enacted, hence the learned Tribunal has rightly pointed out fanciful exercise of power by the officers of petitioner-Department. We do not find any error in such observations made by learned Tribunal. 14. In view of the above, we find that learned Tribunal has not faulted in passing the order dated 26.09.2024 and no interference is called for in the instant writ petition, hence the same is hereby dismissed.