Compassionate appointments are a concession, not an absolute right, requiring adherence to eligibility criteria and assessment of family circumstances.

ORDER :

[Order of the Court is made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J.]

Under assail is the order dated 3rd October, 2018 passed in OA/310/01305/2018 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench.

2. The petitioner submitted an application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds due to the death of his father, Late Mr.P.A.Murugesan, who worked as a Sorting Assistant in the Postal Department at the Railway Mail Service (RMS), Trichy Division. The father of the petitioner died on 10.06.2008, while he was in service at the age of 57 years leaving behind his wife, two sons and one daughter as legal heirs.

3. On account of the sudden death of the Mr.P.A.Murugesan/employee, the family claimed that they were in indigent circumstances and consequently filed an application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds under the scheme. However, the application originally submitted immediately after the death of the employee was rejected by the Chief Post Master General, Tamil Nadu Circle, Chennai in proceedings dated 08.06.2012. The reason assigned for rejection were that the family of the deceased employee was less indigent as per relative merit points and non-availability of direct recruitment vacancies.

4. The petitioner subsequently filed OA.No.1426 of 2012 before the Central Administrative Tribunal. On 15.09.2014, Tribunal directed to consider the case of the petitioner in respect of the subsequent vacancies aroused and allotted for compassionate appointments. Pursuant to the direction, the Chief Post Master General placed the application before the Circle Relaxation Committee for consideration. However, the Committee declined to recommend the case of the petitioner due to non-availability of direct recruitment vacancies in the respective cadre under RRR quota and less indigent as per relative merit points under RRR quota.

5. Not satisfied with the said order, the petitioner again filed OA.No.1421 of 2017 challenging the said order of the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal passed second order on 03.01.2018, directing the respondents to inform the petitioner about the details regarding the number of post for which Direct Recruitment under RRR quota was considered and the relative merit points obtained by the last selected candidate.

6. In implementation of the directions issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal, the respondents again issued a memo dated 03.05.2018, thereby not considered the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. Thus, the third original application was filed in O.A.No.1305 of 2018, which was considered by the Tribunal and the Tribunal in its impugned order made a finding that directions to reconsider the case of the petitioner would serve no purpose and agreed with the findings of the Committee as affirmed by the respondents, dismissed the original application. Challenging the said order, the present writ petition came to be instituted.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the family of the petitioner is in indigent circumstances during the relevant point of time on account of the sudden death of the father of the petitioner. Thus, the application made in time ought to have been considered pursuant to the directions issued by the Central Administrative Tribunal. Further, the relative merit points and the methodology adopted were not communicated to the petitioner, which resulted in institution of repeated original applications before the Tribunal.

8. It is further contended that non consideration of the name of the petitioner for compassionate appointment is perverse, as the scheme's purpose is to provide assistance to the legal heirs of the deceased employee. Therefore, the Tribunal has committed an error in not issuing a direction as such sought for in the original application.

9. Mr.AR.L.Sunderesan, learned Additional Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of the respondents would oppose by stating that the case of the petitioner was considered as