Dr. S.N.Pathak, J.

1. Heard Mr. Saurabh Shekhar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Arbind Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 15.07.2011 issued under the signature of respondent No. 2, whereby, the claim of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected. Petitioner has further prayed for payment of all consequential benefits.

3. The factual exposition as has been delineated in the writ petition is that father of the petitioner, late Dhaneshwar Munda, had been appointed under the respondent-Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (“BSNL” for short) who died in harness on 26.08.2001. After his death, the petitioner made application for his appointment on compassionate ground, which was duly received in the office of the respondents on 26.02.2003. As per the circular of the Department of Personnel & Training, Govt. of India, as contained in memo dated 09.10.1998 & 03.12.1999, the case for appointment on compassionate ground must be considered within a period of one year from the date of such application. It is case of the petitioner that the respondents-authorities kept the matter pending for a long period and after lapse of more than eight years, the same has been rejected on frivolous ground that the net points must be more than 55 in overall assessment, which was on the basis of letter No. 273 dated 27.06.2007, as would be apparent from the order dated 15.07.2011, wherein at column No. (9) the point scored (+ve) has been given, which is Dep. Wtge-25, Pension-2, Left Svce-10, App. Wtge-0, T.B.-5, Accom.-0. Again in column No. (10), the point scored (-ve), which is monthly income-0 and belated request-0 and thereby, net point scored at column Nos. (9) and (10) comes to 42 and as such, the claim has been rejected being less than qualified 55 points. Since claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondents-authorities, the instant writ application has been filed by the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that BSNL is duty bound to follow circular of the Department of Personnel and Training, Govt. of India, which is the Nodal Department of the Central Government to formulate any rule. Since the Department of Personnel & Training has issued OM on 03.12.1999, it is obligation on part of the other Departments to follow the same but the same has not been followed by the respondents-authorities. This decision has been taken by the Central Government solely for the reasons that situation existing in the bereaved family may improve after elapse of time but the same has not been taken care of by the respondents-authorities and after lapse of eight years, the claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner secure less than the minimum qualified points. The impugned order is non-speaking order and the respondents-authorities have not disclosed the basis on which the points at column Nos. 9 and 10 have been allotted and as such, the petitioner could not be able to find out what led the respondents-authorities in allotting the points. Further illegality in the impugned order and the decision taken by the respondents-authorities is that it is not disclosed in the impugned order that what is the basis of fixing cut-off points of 55. The basic requirement for providing appointment on compassionate ground is to see the financial viability of the family of the deceased and the same has to be assessed soon after death of the deceased employee.

To strengthen his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner relies on the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kusheshwar Prasad Singh Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in (2007)11 SCC 447.

5. Counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits that the instant writ application is not mainta