Compassionate appointments must comply with the statutory regulations and instructions, and the financial condition of the family must be considered. Separation from the family must be established by a registered partition deed prior to the employee's death.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Mishra, J.

Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned Judgment/Order dtd. 19.02.2016 passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Bhubaneswar, in O.A. No. 1057 of 2015, vide which the said Original Application of the Petitioner was dismissed, the present Writ Petition has been preferred with a prayer to set aside the said Order so also the Office Order dtd. 02.12.2014, as at Annexure-4 to the Writ Petition, vide which his Application for appointment under the R.A. Scheme was rejected by the Authority. Further, a prayer has been made by the Petitioner to direct the Opp. Parties to allow his Application for compassionate appointment under Annexure-3 Series.

2. The factual matrix of the present case, in brief, is that the father of the Petitioner Shri Radheshyam Shabar, while working as a Driver in the Office of the Commercial Tax Officer, Investigating Unit, Bolangir, expired on 25.05.2011. The Petitioner, being an unemployed Graduate belonging to ST Community, applied for his engagement under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme (shortly “R.A. Scheme”), on 13.11.2011, to the present Opp. Party No. 5, consequent upon which the said Application was sent to the Collector, Bolangir, for issuance of distress certificate. However, the present Opp. Parties No. 3 and 4, without considering the case of the Petitioner and without proper verification of distress condition of the family of the Petitioner so also without applying mind, rejected the Application for appointment of the Petitioner under the R.A. Scheme vide Order dtd. 02.12.2014 on the ground that the brother of the Petitioner is serving as contractual Health Worker. It was contended before the Tribunal that the elder brother of the Petitioner, who is presently working as a Health Worker on contractual basis and not permanently, is not residing in the family of the Petitioner and is living separately with his own family members much prior to the death of the father of the Petitioner and there is no relationship/nexus between the Petitioner’s family and the family of his elder brother. It was also the case of the Petitioner before the Tribunal that his elder brother is not providing any financial help to the family of the Petitioner and they are now living with a lot of difficulty and after the death of his father a deed was executed between his elder brother and his mother for separation. But the case of the Petitioner having not found favour with by the Authority, the very purpose of providing appointment under the R.A. Scheme got frustrated.

3. The present Opp. Parties No. 3 to 5, being noticed, appeared before the Tribunal and filed their Counter indicating therein that as per the R.A. Scheme, the wife of the deceased is the first claimant for appointment. As the wife of the deceased was declared medically unfit, her elder son Gauranga Shabar was eligible for appointment in terms of Rule-2 (b) of the Orissa Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 (Shortly “OCS (R.A.) Rules, 1990”. However, the present Petitioner, who is the second son of the deceased Government servant, filed a medical certificate vide which the elder son of late Radheshyam Shabar was declared unfit for any job under the R.A. Scheme.

Accordingly, the Joint Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Bolangir Range, Bolangir, was requested to make an enquiry into the matter. Pursuant to the said request, an Enquiry Report was submitted to the CTO Mobile, Bolangir Range, Bolangir, indicating therein that the elder son of the deceased Government servant late Radheshyam Shabar is working as a contractual Health Worker and the present Petitioner, by suppressing the real fact, has applied for rehabilitation appointment, which is violative of the provisions under the R.A. Rules, 1990 and in terms of Rule-2 (a) (iii) of the OCS (R.A.) Rules, 1990, the present Petitioner is not entitled for a job under the R.A. Scheme. It was further contended by the present Opp. Party