Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to the order Date 16.02.2024 in O.A.No.415 of 2020 passed by the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench and set aside the same and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds with all consequential benefits including notional seniority and pass such

The Court made the following:

ORDER:

(Per Hon’ble Sri Justice Cheekati Manavendranath Roy)

The order dated 16.02.2024 passed in O.A.No.20/415/2020 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, whereby, the claim of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds was rejected, is under challenge in this writ petition.

Heard Ms. Gorla Manasa, learned counsel for the writ petitioner and Smt. K.Aruna, learned Standing Counsel for BSNL appearing for the respondents.

The writ petitioner is the son of a person by name Issak Madeena. His father Issak Madeena was an employee working as Mazdoor in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (for short, ‘BSNL’). While he was in service, he unfortunately died in harness on 30.10.2002. Thereafter, the writ petitioner has applied for appointment on compassionate grounds. Late Issak Madeena got a son, who is the writ petitioner herein and a daughter. The request of the writ petitioner, who is his son, for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected by the concerned authority after making an enquiry and declined to appoint him on compassionate grounds. Be it noted here only that the said rejection was not challenged by the writ petitioner before the Tribunal or any Court. He only made a request to re-consider his request. The same was not re-considered. Thereafter, he has again made another application to appoint him on compassionate grounds. The said application was also rejected by the concerned authority on the ground that there was no vacancy as on the date of the said application, to appoint him on compassionate grounds. He challenged the same before the Tribunal in O.A.No.284 of 2017. The said O.A. was disposed of. Thereafter, he again made another request to appoint him on compassionate grounds. The said request is again rejected on the ground that there is no vacancy to appoint him on compassionate grounds. It is the said third request that was rejected was challenged by the writ petitioner before the Tribunal in O.A.No.20/415/2020. The said O.A. was dismissed by the impugned order on the ground that the compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and as there is a delay of 16 years as on the date of making the said request that the writ petitioner is not entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds.

Aggrieved thereby, the instant writ petition has been filed by the writ petitioner.

Learned counsel for the writ petitioner submits that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the O.A. only on the ground that there is a delay of 16 years in making the claim and the Tribunal did not consider the merits of the case and the Tribunal did notice that as on the date of the first request made by the applicant that there is a vacancy to accommodate him and without considering all these facts that the Tribunal erred in dismissing the claim only on the ground of delay. Therefore, learned counsel for the writ petitioner sought for interference of this Court in this writ petition and to pass an appropriate order to consider the request of the writ petitioner to appoint him on compassionate grounds, as he is only living by giving private tuitions to the students and has no sufficient means to eke out his livelihood.

Countering the said argument, learned Standing Counsel for BSNL submits that at present there is no policy of making appointment by compassionate ground