An order of the CAT directing consideration of the case of an applicant for compassionate appointment, when not resulting in failure of substantial justice, does not warrant interference in the extraordinary jurisdiction.

1. - By way of this writ petition, the non-applicants of Original Application ('OA') No. 135/2004 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur ('the CAT') have questioned the order dated 26.08.2004, whereby the CAT has allowed the OA filed by the present respondent and has directed the present petitioners to consider her case for appointment on compassionate ground with reference to the demise of her husband Patwari Ram.

2. The applicant-respondent made a prayer for appointment on the basis of compassionate ground with the submissions that her husband Shri Patwari Ram was employed as a temporary status employee with the Commanding Officer, 375 Coy ASC (Sup) Type C; and expired on 12.01.2004 while in service. It was submitted that the deceased employee was survived by his widow i.e. the applicant, four daughters and two sons; and that the family was in penury having no means of livelihood and no earning member with the eldest child being of the age of 16 years. Her prayer for appointment on compassionate ground was turned down by the petitioners on the ground that there was no provision in the rules to accord employment to the dependents of the deceased employee, who was having only the temporary status as a casual labourer. Aggrieved, the respondent filed the OA aforesaid.

3. The OA was resisted by the present petitioners with the submissions that the husband of the applicant was absent without leave and as per post mortem report, the cause of death was head injury due to accident; and that no service record in respect of the applicant's husband was available since he was a temporary status labourer. It was submitted that the applicable scheme dated 09.10.1988 did not provide for giving appointment on compassionate grounds to the dependents of the persons holding only the temporary status.

4. Before the CAT, it was a position admitted on behalf of both the parties that controversy stood covered by a decision of CAT in the case of Smt. Santosh v. ICAR , decided on 31.05.2004. However, legal pleas were sought to be advanced before the CAT on behalf of the present petitioners.

5. The CAT found no reason to dilate much on the matter for the controversy being essentially covered with the decision in Smt. Santosh Devi (Supra) and, therefore, allowed the OA while observing, inter alia, as under:-

"6. We have very carefully perused the decision in the case of Smt. Santosh (supra) and find that the controversy is fully covered by the same. In this view of the matter, we find that there is no need of any further discussion in the matter and the said judgment is being treated as part of this order. We have absolutely no hesitation in following the said decision and in deciding this O.A. on similar lines.

7. In the premises, the inescapable conclusion is that the Original Application has ample merit and substance and the same stands allowed, accordingly. The impugned order dated 23.02.2004 (Annex.A/1) is hereby quashed. The respondents are hereby directed to consider the case for the applicant for appointment on compassionate ground on a post she is eligible as a Casual labourer within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs."

6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the office memorandum dated 09.10.1988 and contended that the expression "Government Servant" for the purpose of the scheme for appointment on compassionate ground only means Government servant appointed on regular employment post and not the one who is working on daily wages or casual apprentice or ad hoc or contract or re-employment basis. The learned counsel has also referred to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Indian Council of Agricultural Research and Another v. Santosh : (2006) 11 SCC 157 to submit that the rights sought to be claimed with reference to the service of an employee on temporary status have been held not available by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

7. The learned counse