Rejection of claim for compassionate appointment held arbitrary.

This writ petition has been filed praying to call for the records in RET/31-36/99 on the file of the second respondent and quash the order dated 17.03.2003 made therein and consequently direct the first respondent to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds in Group III category or any post equivalent thereto with all service benefits w.e.f. 011. 1999.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of this writ petition are as follows :

(i) The petitioners father, while working as Senior Section Supervisor (S.S.S.) in Central Telegraph Office, Chennai 600 001, (now known as Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., (BSNL), a Government of India Enterprise) suddenly died intestate of brain stroke, leaving behind the petitioner, his mother and two other sons. He had two and a half years of service to his credit at the time of his death. Since he died while he was in service and that one of the representatives of the family members being eligible for a job in the Department, the petitioner, who is an under graduate in Science, was nominated by the family members for the same and his mother made representations on 011. 1998 and 111. 1998 nominating the petitioner for employment, in response to which the Chief Superintendent, Central Telegraph Office, Chennai 600 001, sent a requirement list dated 111. 1998. The requirement list was duly complied with by the petitioner as early as on 211. 1998 as per the norms prescribed in Appendix-2 of CCS (Pension) Rules. However, he was declined the offer of employment on untenable grounds through a communication dated 20.08.1999 from the Chief General Manager, Telecommunications, who is the second respondent herein.

(ii) The petitioner submitted a detailed reply to the second respondent vide letter dated 011. 1999 with necessary enclosures explaining the actual facts. He clarified that his elder brother is an employee only in a Housing Finance Company named as INDBANK Housing Ltd., which was running under heavy loss since 1998 and that the same is neither a private sector nor a public sector Bank; he is living separately in a far-away place at Pudukottai along with his wife and children and further he is taking care of his paternal grandmother and that a sum of Rs.500/-per month is being paid to him from the monthly pension received by them on account of his fathers death; that his wife is only a house-wife and there is no chance of any financial support from his elder brother to his family.

(iii) In the detailed reply, the petitioner further clarified that his younger brother was studying 3rd year B.E. without any scholarship either from the Government or from any Trust and that his education requires considerable expenditure which was being met and taken care of by the petitioner. He detailed that the plot measuring 1,800 sq. ft. was not owned by the petitioner as of that day as there was a balance of Rs.1,00,000/-to be paid to the Tamil Nadu Housing Board and that a sum of Rs.46,000/- was already borrowed by his father to be paid as advance for this purpose. The petitioner further clarified that they did not own the house and they were staying only in rented house in Villivakkam, paying a rent of Rs.2,000/- per month.

(iv) The petitioner submitted that the amount received as terminal benefits was used for funeral expenses of his father and certain amount had to be spent as Medical expenses for his mother, who suffered from various ailments due to the sudden demise of his father. He further submitted that he had spent considerable sum for the treatment given to his father, when he suffered Cerebral attack, due to which he was admitted in medicare centre, Washermanpet. It was also clarified by the petitioner that since proper nomination was not given by his father during his lifetime, 50% of GPF was paid to his grandmother, Mrs.Muthammal and therefore, his family members are living in an indingent condition.

(v) For the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the Chief General Manager, Telecomm