IMPORTANT POINT
Compassionate appointment is an exception, not a right, intended for immediate relief to families in financial crisis following the death of a breadwinner, and delays in application undermine this purpose.

JUDGMENT :

(K.V. Jayakumar, J.)

This Original Petition is directed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in O.A.No.22/2018 dated 11.07.2018. The petitioner herein is the applicant before the learned Tribunal. The Tribunal, by the impugned order, has rejected the claims of compassionate appointment of the applicant.

2. The facts necessary for disposal of this Original Petition in brief are as follows:

The petitioner, Sri.A.G.Ajayakumar, is the son of Sri. C. Gopalan who died on 03.03.2007 while working as Postman in Pulpally, Waynad. After his father’s death, petitioner applied for employment assistance under the Compassionate Employment Scheme on 03.05.2007. The 1st respondent/Chief Post Master General had not considered the request of the petitioner’s employment assistance in the Compassionate Employment Scheme.

3. The petitioner is the younger son of the deceased Government servant. Other legal heirs of the deceased Gopalan are the petitioner’s mother and elder sister. They relinquished the claim for compassionate employment and none of the other dependents of the deceased Government servant has availed the benefit of employment under the Scheme.

4. The petitioner is unemployed and was fully dependent on the deceased for his livelihood. Petitioner’s mother is an Asthma patient, apart from other old age ailments. Even though the petitioner and his mother jointly own a plot and a small house, no income is derived from this. The petitioner and his mother were struggling hard for their livelihood. Now petitioner’s mother is no more.

5. The representation of the petitioner dated 26.02.2009 was forwarded to the 2nd respondent by 1st respondent and it was rejected by the 1st respondent on 12.10.2009.

6. The petitioner was not given appointment under the pretext that there are limited vacancies in the department and petitioner’s name was not recommended by the Circle Relaxation Committee.

7. The petitioner has also made a representation to the Chief Post Master General, Trivandrum on 02.07.2014 through the 2nd respondent to consider his grievance. It was also turned down by the department. Thereafter the petitioner preferred O.A.No.890/2015 before the Tribunal challenging the orders of the respondents. The Tribunal, as per order dated 04.10.2016, directed the respondents to reconsider the request of the petitioner and pass a speaking order.

8. However, the 2nd respondent has passed an order reiterating the same grounds. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred O.A.No.22/2018 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed O.A.No.22/2018 as per order dated 11.07.2018. Ext.P5 is the true copy of the said order. Impugning the said order, the applicant approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution.

9. Heard Adv.Celine Joseph, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Adv.T.C.Krishna, Deputy Solicitor General of India-In- Charge for respondents.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal is illegal and unjustifiable. The Tribunal ought to have found that the petitioner and his mother had no fixed income or job. He cannot survive by the meagre income received from the agricultural activities. The entire family is in financial difficulties on account of the sudden stoppage of the main source of income of his father Sri. C. Gopalan.

11. It was submitted that, Compassionate Employment Scheme was introduced to mitigate the hardship caused to the family of the deceased on account of unexpected death, while in service.

12. From among the rival contentions before us, the only point arises for our consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to get employment under the Compassionate Employment Scheme.

13. The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed the Original Application holding that, no indigency can be ascribed to a man living with his wife and children and the family of the petitioner owns 1.60 acres of