Compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right after a certain period, and the purpose is to mitigate the hardship due to the death of the breadwinner in the family.

ORDER

Anoop Kumar Dhand, J. - A challenge in the instant petition has been made by the petitioners to the order dated 19.08.2021 passed by Central Administrative Tribunbal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short 'the Tribunal') in Original Application No.291/431/2017 whereby the Tribunal dismissed the original application filed by them.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the husband of the petitioner No.1, Mool Singh was working on the post of 'Darban', expired on 19.05.2003. The petitioner No.1 approached the concerned authorities for seeking compassionate appointment for the son i.e. the petitioner No.2 Hazari Lal. While considering pertitioners case by the respondents, they were informed vide letter/order dated 05/12.04.2005 about the ban on direct recruitment on Group "C" and "D" posts. Therafter again, the petitioner No.2 submitted a representation dated 19.09.2005 with the same request to the respondent No.3 and again on 13.06.2006, the respondents- authorities informed the petitioners that no post in Group "C" is vacant and denied appointment to the petitioner No.2 Hazari Lal and vide order dated 04/05.10.2006, issued under the signature of Administrative Officer Gr. I, Office of Geological Survey of India, Western Region, the matter for giving compassionate appointment to the petitioner No.2 was closed.

3. After a period of more than ten years of denial of compassionate appointment, the petitioners again started making representations to the authorities including the local Member of Parliament with the prayer to give compassionte appointment to the petitioner No.2.

4. The respondents again re-considered the matter and rejected the claim of the petitioners by saying that the petitioner No.2 is a married son of the deceased-employee, Lt. Sh. Mool Singh.

5. Without challenging the orders dated 05/12.04.2005 and 13.06.2006, the petitioners submitted Original Application before the Tribunal challenging the order dated 12.09.2016 on the ground that the application was submitted by them well within time, but the same was rejected by the respondents vide order dated 19.08.2021 by the Tribunal, on the ground that the petitioner No.2 is not entitled to get compassionate appointment being he a married son of the deceased-employee. The Tribunal rejected the original application of the petitioners on the ground that the request of the petitioner No.2 for compassionate appointment cannot be entertained at such a belated stage.

6. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 19.08.2021 passed by the Tribunal, the petitioners have filed this petition before this Court.

7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

8. From the facts narrated in the writ petition, it emerges that the deceased-employee died on 19.05.2003, while he was in service. Thereafter the petitioners submitted application for appointment on compassionate ground to the petitioner No.2, in the year 2003. The petitioner No.2 was denied appointment vide order dated 05/12.04.2005 by the respondents by saying that there is ban on direct recruitment on Group "C" and "D" posts and finally the matter was closed by the respondents on 13.06.2006 by reiterating the same, that posts in Group "C" are not available.

9. It appears that the petitioners did not bother to challenge the orders dated 05/12.04.2005 and 13.06.2006 before any competent forum of law. Thereafter, they awoke after ten years and started making representations to the concerned authorities. Again their matter was reconsidered by the respondents but their claim for compassionate appointment was denied vide order dated 12.09.2016.

10. At this stage, it is required to be noted that in the year 2003, the application was submitted on compassionate ground which was rejected in the years 2005 and 2006 respectively, and the same have attained finality and despite of the above, the petitioners did not avail any remedy available to them upto ten years.

11. After expiry of ten years, the petitioners approached the conc