IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the need to consider the claim for compassionate appointment and to address discrepancies in family income within a specified timeframe.

ORDER :

K. Kumaresh Babu, J.

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records pertaining to the order passed in O.A.No.510 of 2019, dated 09.02.2023 on the file of the Central Administration Tribunal, Madras Bench and Quash the same and pass further orders.)

1. The challenge in the Writ Petition is to an order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal quashing the order passed by the third petitioner herein, dated 17.11.2018 and consequently directing the petitioners to issue appointment order to the second respondent on compassionate grounds in commensuration of his educational qualification.

2. Heard Mr. R. Syed Mustafa, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Prakash Adiapadam, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent.

3. Mr. R. Syed Mustafa, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the petitioners would submit that the father of the second respondent died in harness on 05.02.2002. An application for compassionate appointment was made on 05.08.2002. Originally, the said request was rejected by the order dated 15.02.2007, based on the Screening Committee's Minutes. He would submit that thereafter, again a representation had been made on 03.11.2014 and was recommended for being considered to the Screening Committee. However, the Screening Committee had held that the second respondent's family is not in a penurious circumstances and based on the Minutes of the Screening Committee, the claim of the second respondent had been rejected. Challenging the same, the second respondent had approached the Tribunal and the Tribunal on erroneous facts had set aside the order of rejection by holding that the Screening Committee in its Minutes had recommended the case of the second respondent in its both Meetings held on 12.09.2005 and 01.07.2015, whereas, the impugned order suggested otherwise. He would submit that in fact the Screening Committee had rejected the claim of the second respondent. Hence, he would seek interference of the order passed by the Administrative Tribunal.

4. Countering his arguments, Mr. Prakash Adiapadam, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would submit that claim of the second respondent is that his application had been rejected as early as in the year 2007 cannot be countenanced for the simple fact that the said order, even as on today has not been communicated to him. He would further submit that when a report of the Deputy Director (Administration), Office of the Deputy Collector (Revenue) North had submitted a Report based upon the Report of the Tahsildar Taluk Office, Puducherry that the annual income of the family of the second respondent including the salary of the second respondent was only Rs.16,280/-, there was no material available with the petitioners to come to a different conclusion to hold that the second respondent is employed in a private company earning for a sum of Rs.8,000/- per month. This factual finding given by the authority is wholly erroneous. Therefore, there is no error in the order of the Tribunal in setting aside the order of the petitioners and directing the petitioners to consider the case of the second respondent for appointment on the ground of compassionate appointment.

5. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record before this Court.

6. A perusal of the order impugned before us would show that what the Tribunal had done is to set aside the order passed by the petitioners in rejecting the claim of the second respondent for compassionate appointment and directing the petitioners to consider the case of the second respondent for appointment on the ground of compassionate appointment.

7. From the facts that had been narrated by the respective counsels, it could be seen that there is a discrepancy as regards to the family income of