IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that compassionate appointments are subject to specific eligibility criteria and that delays in processing medical evaluations should not adversely affect the applicant's rights, provided the applicant meets the necessary conditions outlined in the relevant rules.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

1. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 19.09.2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Ranchi in contempt proceeding being case No. CP/051/00046/19 whereby and whereunder the contempt proceeding initiated against the respondents has been dropped.

2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ petition, which are required to be enumerated, read hereunder as:-

It is the case of the petitioner that on 21.10.1965, the father of the petitioner joined on the post of Lower Division Clerk (LD C) in Spl. Circle of Income Tax Department at Patna. Upon transfer, in the year 1978, the father of the Petitioner joined in the office of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax IT Circle-I, Ranchi.

3. On 31.10.1996, the father of the petitioner made an application for his voluntary retirement on medical ground under the provisions of Rule-38 of the Central Civil Services Pension Rules, 1972.

4. By letter No 9376 dated 23.12.1996, the Income Tax Officer, Head Quarters, Ranchi requested the Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Ranchi to constitute a Medical Board for checking up the health condition of the father of the Petitioner.

5. The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Ranchi, vide letter dated 02.01.1997, requested the Head of the Department of Medicines and Eyes to examine the father of the petitioner. The Medical Board, accordingly, examined the father of the petitioner and submitted its report on 21.01.1997 observing therein that the father of the petitioner is invalid to work.

6. Thereafter, vide order dated 28.02.1997, the father of the petitioner was permitted to retire on medial ground under Rule 38 of the Rules, 1972 with effect from 28.02.1997.

7. After retirement from service on medical ground, the father of the petitioner was getting only invalid pension which was not sufficient to fulfill the basic needs of the family. Accordingly, on 17.04.1997, the father of the petitioner made an application for compassionate appointment of the petitioner in the Department.

8. The office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Patna prepared a list of the applicants for compassionate appointment on 01.12.1997. The name of the Petitioner was figuring at Sl.No:8 thereof.

9. Subsequently, the petitioner received a Proforma on 04.04.2000, from the office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax which was duly filled up by him and submitted in the office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax on 06.04.2000.

10. The case of the petitioner was considered by the competent authority, but they ignored Sl.No:8 while considering the applicants figuring at Sl. Nos.9, 14, 16 and 18 of the list.

11. Then the petitioner made a representation before the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Patna. Thereafter, on 22.10.2000, the Petitioner received a Proforma Form (Part A and B) from the office of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Patna which was duly filled up and submitted on 09.01.2001. Again the matter was placed before the Committee and the name of the Petitioner was recommended for appointment and his name figures at Sl.No: 4 of the List so prepared in February, 2002.

12. In the month of April, 2003, appointment of those candidates including the candidates appearing at Sl. No. 3 was made without considering the case of the petitioner due to which the petitioner submitted a representation on 14.03.2007 and on 16.01.2008.

13. When no response to the representation was received, the petitioner took resort to the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005. By an order dated 20.02.2008, it was informed that the candidature of the petitioner was rejected by the Selection Committee due to over-age of retirement of his father and on the date of superannuation, the father of the petitioner had attained the age of 55 years and 21 days and, therefore, there was delay of 21 days. It was also mentioned therein that on 11.12.