1. - R.K. Nigam- the husband of the present appellant was substantively employed on the post of HSG-II in the Postal Department. He died unfortunately on 4th December, 1999 leaving behind his widow (the present appellant) and two young daughters. As per the policy of the Department of Post for appointment under relaxation of Recruitment Rules on compassionate ground, the appellant applied vide her application dated 13.12.1999/4.1.2000 for appointment in the Postal Assistant Cadre. He: application was rejected on 5th February, 2001 inter-alia on the grounds : (i) that she has been getting family pension amounting to Rs. 2,800/- per month; (ii) that the terminal benefits to the tune of Rs. 4,30,957/- has been paid to her, and (iii) that she was in possession of the residential house and KVP of Rs. 2,50,000/-. She was, thus, informed that her financial condition did not appear to be indigent requiring immediate relief.

2. The petitioner challenged the order dated 5th February, 2001 by filing Original Application No. 182/2001 before the Central Administrative Tribunal.

3. The Tribunal observed that the provisions of the scheme for compassionate appointment were liberal and that she was entitled to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground on a suitable post and she cannot be denied the appointment on compassionate ground because she received terminal benefits. The Tribunal, thus, by its order dated 20th November, 2001 directed the respondents to reconsider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground on a suitable post within a period of two months from the date of the order.

4. Pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal on 20th November, 2001, the case of the appellant for appointment on compassionate ground was reconsidered and rejected by the Circle Relaxation Committee and the petitioner was communicated vide letter dated 1st January, 2002. The grounds for rejection of the petitioner's claim for appointment on compassionate ground as set out in the communication dated 1st January, 2002 read thus :

"In compliance to the directions of the Hon'ble Tribunal issued on 8.12.2000 while deciding OA No. 567/2000 filed by Smt. Manju Nigam (the applicant), the case had been considered on 7.2.2001 but was rejected on its merits. The Circle Selection Committee met on 31.12.2001 again carried out an objective assessment of the financial condition of the family thoroughly taking into account the position regarding availability of vacancy for such appointment. As per instructions on compassionate grounds contained in DOP & T OM No. 14014/6/94-Estt. (D) dated 9.10.98 read with O.M. No. 14014/23/99-Estt. (D) dated 3.12.999 the appointment on compassionate grounds is intended to render immediate assistance to the family of Govt. servant who dies in harness leaving his family in financial crisis and such appointment can be proved only to fill upto 5% of vacancies that arise for direct recruitment within a year. Consequently, it becomes essential to ensure that only more deserving cases are approved as per the purpose stipulated in the scheme. Further, there is no provision for approving cases in the absence of vacancies for compassionate appointment and keeping them on waiting list and maintaining of waiting list has been discontinued by DOP vide letter No. 24-1/99-SPB.1 dated 8.2.2001 in pursuance of DOP & T O.M. No. 42012/4/2000-Estt. (D) dated 24.11.2000.

As observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.K. Nagpal's case, the only ground which can justify compassionate appointment is the penurious condition of the family and it should be offered as relief against the destitution. In addition objective of the scheme is to have the family to get out of emergency which is indigent and deserve immediate assistance for relief from financial destitution. The DOP & T vide its OM No. 14014/18/2000-Estt. (D) dated 22.6.2001 has stipulated that the committee should take into account the position regarding availabilit