The interpretation of eligibility criteria for compassionate appointment should allow either condition of dependence or support to be met, rather than requiring both simultaneously.

ORDER :

1. The 1^st respondent's father late A.Selvaraj joined the services of the petitioners on 16.08.1983 as a Sweeper and while working as a Multi-Tasking Staff, he died on 30.06.2011, leaving behind his wife Smt.S.Pattammal and two married daughters. All the three legal heirs of the late employee are unemployed. The 1^st respondent herein, who is the eldest daughter of the late employee, had sought for appointment on compassionate grounds before the petitioners herein, on the ground that she is supporting the dependant members of the family. After conducting an enquiry, her request was favourably recommended by the 2^nd petitioner herein on 20.11.2014. However, the 1^st petitioner had rejected her request on 16.06.2017, which became the subject matter of challenge before the Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') in O.A.No.1170 of 2017. By an order dated 10.01.2018, the Tribunal had set aside the rejection order and directed the petitioners to consider the 1^st respondent's case for grant of compassionate appointment. Aggrieved against the same, this Writ Petition has been filed.

2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that under the scheme of compassionate appointment, a married daughter can be considered, if she is wholly dependant on the Government servant at the time of his/her death in harness or retirement on medical grounds and that she must support other dependant members of the family. According to the learned counsel, since the 1^st respondent's husband was gainfully employed in the State Bank of India and earning Rs.34,000/- per month, she cannot be considered as wholly dependant on the Government servant and therefore is not eligible for compassionate appointment. He also placed reliance on the report of the Accounts Officer, which records that the family of the deceased employee owns a dwelling site measuring 600 sq. ft. with a small thatched roof at Trichy Town Senkulam Village, which has an open market value of Rs.2,00,000/- and the widow was paid the terminal benefits and therefore, the family cannot be termed to be under indigent circumstances.

3. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the 1^st respondent, on the contrary, submitted that the married daughter of a late Government servant is eligible for compassionate appointment and since the 1^st respondent is wholly supporting the family of the deceased employee, the Tribunal had rightly set aside the rejection order, which cannot be found fault with.

4. It is not in dispute that a married daughter is eligible to be considered for compassionate appointment, subject to the conditions:-

(i) that she was wholly dependant on the Government servant at the time of his/her death in harness or retirement on medical grounds;

(ii) that she must support other dependant members of the family.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the 1^st respondent does not fall under Condition No.(i), since her husband was gainfully employed and hence, she is ineligible for consideration. In other words, the submission appears to be that both the aforesaid two conditions are required to be complied in order to be considered for compassionate appointment.

6. The understanding of the petitioners on eligibility conditions of the scheme of compassionate appointment, as per the DoPT's guidelines/ instructions, that b