Receipt of terminal benefits and pensionary benefits does not jeopardize an applicant's claim to be appointed on compassionate ground.

JUDGMENT :

(Rai Chattopadhyay, J.)

A. Impugned order and prayers in the writ petition.

1. Impugned, in this writ petition, is the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench, dated November 18, 2022. The Tribunal has delivered the same, to dispose of the original application filed before it by the present petitioner, being O.A No. 350/1769/2017 (Sourav Sengupta vs. Union of India & Ors.).

2. In this writ petition the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for (i) writ in the nature of mandamus to commend respondent authority to act and proceed in accordance with law [i.e, prayer no. (a) in the writ petition], (ii) to quash and or set aside the impugned order of the Tribunal as mentioned above [i.e, prayer no. (b) in the writ petition], (iii) also to set aside previous orders of the respondent authority dated November 21, 2017 and July 18, 2012 [i.e, prayer no. (c) in the writ petition], (iv) the writ petitioner has also prayed for a direction to commend the respondents for consideration of his case for giving appointment on compassionate ground and issue a letter of appointment in his favour [i.e, prayer no. (d) in the writ petition], (v) the writ petitioner has also prayed of issuance of writ of prohibition to prohibit the respondent authorities to give any fact to the present impugned order [i.e, prayer no. (e) in the writ petition], the writ of certiorari and also other ancillary reliefs.

3. The matter relates to rejection of petitioner’s prayer for compassionate appointment by the respondent Union of India, through its respective department. Parties have had several rounds of litigation as well as personal hearing of the petitioner, before the respondent authorities. The latest of the orders, to the disadvantage and dissatisfaction of the present petitioner, is that dated November 18, 2022, by the Tribunal which is impugned in the present writ petition. While delivering the same the Tribunal has basically dwelt upon the grounds that the claim of the present petitioner was appropriately rejected by the concerned authority on the ground, firstly, that the petitioner had no dependent family member, secondly, and importantly that the family was not in any indigent condition, which could have been prompted imminent necessity for providing him with compassionate appointment, thirdly, that the elder brother or the petitioner happened to be a government employee and finally that the petitioner was living in his own house. According to the Tribunal, as recorded in the said impugned order, that the respondent authorities have done no wrong in rejecting petitioner’s prayer, being duly governed under the DoPT office memo dated January 16, 2013. The Tribunal has observed that the said office memo dated 16.01.2013 was the applicable law at the relevant point of time, when the petitioner/his mother made the application for compassionate appointment. Thus, the Tribunal found the decision of the authority, of rejecting petitioner’s prayer for compassionate appointment, to be in consonance with the policies settled under the afore stated office memo dated 16.01.2013 and in that way has been just, legal and proper. Hence, the Tribunal found no illegality in the said order of rejection of compassionate appointment of the present petitioner, in its order dated November 18, 2022, as impugned.

B. Facts of the Case

4. The father of the petitioner was an employee with the respondent authorities. He died in harness on January 14, 2012. On May 17, 2012, petitioner made application for compassionate appointment in the prescribed proforma, to the respondent authority. Subsequently on September 2, 2013 the mother of the present petitioner wrote a letter praying for due consideration and early disposal of the prayer as above. Thereafter comes an order of the respondent authority dated July 18, 2012 (communicated under cover of letter dated January 3, 2014). By dint of the same petitioner’s prayer was rejected on the ground that after death of