JUDGMENT :

Sangeet Lodha, J.

1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 4.6.15 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench ('the Tribunal'), whereby Original Application preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 26.6.13 issued by the Assistant Postmaster General (S&V), Department of Posts, Government of India, intimating the rejection of application preferred by the petitioner herein for appointment on compassionate ground, stands dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner's father Mr. Mohammed Akhtar working as Mailman in the Department of Posts died while in service on 20.7.2000. The brother of the petitioner Mr. Mohammed Aslam submitted an application in prescribed proforma seeking appointment on compassionate ground. The application was rejected vide order dated 1.3.2001 as his case was not found suitable for appointment on compassionate ground under the Scheme. The legality of the order was not questioned by Mohammed Aslam by availing the appropriate remedy available under the law and the same attained finality. After a lapse of about 9 years, in the year 2010, an application was made by the petitioner's mother seeking appointment on compassionate ground for his second son, the petitioner herein, which stood rejected by the competent authority vide order dated 26.6.2013, on the ground that the case of the petitioner was not found indigent or comparatively indigent than the recommended cases. The representation of the petitioner for reconsideration of the decision stood rejected vide communication dated 14.10.2013. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred an original application before the Tribunal, which stands dismissed by the order impugned. Hence, this petition.

3. The original application has been dismissed by the Tribunal observing that there is no provision in the Scheme of the Compassionate Appointment, under which if case of one dependent is rejected, another can be considered. The Tribunal observed that the family never challenged the order dated 1.3.2001, whereby application of elder son was rejected and thus, after a lapse of 9 years, another member of the family cannot claim appointment on compassionate ground. The Tribunal also noticed that the application has been rejected also on the ground that the petitioner is not found indigent or comparatively indigent than the recommended ones.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that under the Scheme, the application of any dependent cannot be rejected on the ground that the application earlier filed by one of the dependent of the deceased Government employee, has already been rejected. Learned counsel submitted that the applications made by the petitioner and his brother have not been considered by the respondents objectively on merits and thus, the order impugned passed by the learned Tribunal is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel submitted that the order impugned passed by the Tribunal runs contrary to the very object of the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment.

5. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel and perused the material on record.

6. It is to be noticed that the death of the government employee by itself does not transform into eligibility to claim appointment on compassionate ground. As per the Scheme framed, a dependent of a Government servant dying in harness acquires the eligibility for consideration for appointment on compassionate ground, if the following twin conditions are satisfied:

(1) The family is indigent and deserves immediate assistance for relief from financial destitution; and

(2) Applicant for compassionate appointment should be eligible and suitable for the post in all respects under the provisions of the relevant Recruitment Rules.

7. Indisputably, in the first instance, the petitioner's brother had claimed appointment on compassionate ground, which stood rejected vide order dated 1.3.2001 observing that the financial con