The main legal point established is that the acceptance of resignation and denial of compassionate appointment were unjust and contrary to the mandatory provisions of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, and the constitutional mandate of Article 21.

1. - This writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India is directed by the petitioners against the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal') dated 26th of July, 2001 in Original Application No. 445/2000.

2. The facts, in brief, giving rise to the filing of this writ petition are that the petitioner No. 1 Brij Bhushan Sharma (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the petitioner No. 1') was appointed on the post of Extra Departmental Mail Carrier (hereinafter shall be referred to as 'the EDMC') at Jeewad on 27th October, 1978. He was discharging his duties to the utmost satisfaction of his superiors. Unfortunately, one Rajesh Kumar son of Mangi Lal, resident of Ghatan, Tehsil Weir, who is a hardened criminal, threw salt acid on the petitioner No. 1 at 5.00 AM on 5.6.2000 which came into contact to his both eyes. He immediately lodged a criminal case on the same day against the accused Rajesh Kumar son of Mangi Lal, being F.I.R. No. 168/98. The petitioner No. 1 was referred to General Hospital, Bharatpur for treatment. Later on he was referred to S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur. He was treated in Burn Unit as also in the Eyes unit at the S.M.S. Hospital, Jaipur from 6.11.1998 to 7.12.1998. As a result of this incident, he completely lost the vision in his both eyes. The Head of the Opthalmology Department, S.M.S. Medical College & Hospital, Jaipur certified that the petitioner No. 1 has lost the vision in his both eyes due to the acid burn. The certificate is there on record of the writ petition as annexure-3.

3. After discharge from the Hospital, the petitioner No. 1 went to his native village. There he came to know that the respondent Department has removed him from the services without complying with the provisions of Extra Departmental Postal Rules and in utter disregard of the principles of natural justice and fair play and in his place on Rajesh Singh, the respondent No. 5 has been appointed. He submitted a representation to the Assistant Superintendent of Post Office, Bayana and made therein serious grievance against the appointment of respondent No. 5. It if further submitted that as he has no source of income and his family is on the verge of starvation his wife Smt. Poonam Sharma, the petitioner No. 2 herein, who is middle pass, may be given appointment as EDMC in his place so as to get the financial assistance to maintain their family. The prayer has also been made for recalling of the appointment given to the respondent No. 5 as EDMC.

4. The Assistant Superintendent of Post Office, Bayana Sub Division, Bayana under its letter dated 6th of January, 1999 (Annexure-5) informed to the petitioner No. 1 that his leave is sanctioned on the condition of producing by him the medical certificate. It is stated in this letter that the petitioner No. 1 has not sent the medical certificate, though he remained absent since November, 1998. The leaves are stated to have been sanctioned for the minimum period of one month. It is informed to the petitioner No. 1 that in his place, alternative arrangements have been made and Rajesh Singh, the respondent No. 5, has been appointed EDMC purely on ad hoc basis is given with the clear understanding that or. regaining health and on the return of the petitioner No. 1, he shall be relieved from the post.

5. Some time in the month of August, 1999 the petitioner No. 2 personally went to the Office of the respondent No. 3, the Chief Post Master General for Rajasthan, Jaipur. The respondent No. 3 directed the respondent No. 4, the Superintendent of Post Office, Dholpur Division, Dholpur, to issue necessary forms to the petitioner No. 2 for appointment on compassionate ground and to obtain her application on the prescribed proforma. The petitioners submitted the application form duly filled in along with all the requisite testimonials to the Department but nothing was done. Reiterating all the facts the petitioner No. 1 submit