Compassionate appointment not a right but exception for indigent families in financial crisis post employee's death; rejection upheld where competent authority finds no penury after merits assessment.

ORDER

Per: Hon’ble Mr. Umesh Gajankush, Member (J)

1. Present case was filed by the applicant earlier before the Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, which was registered as Special Civil Application (SCA) No.6948/2004 and transferred to this Tribunal vide order dated 28.03.2019 with following directions:-

“In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition against the BSNL and in view of the aforesaid notification dated 31.10.2008 as incorporated in the aforesaid judgments dated 25.06.2010 and 28.09.2011, the captioned writ petition cannot be entertained for want of jurisdiction. Hence, the Registry is directed to transfer the present writ petition to Central Administrative Tribunal, Ahmedabad, forthwith. The present petition stands disposed of. Rule is discharged.”

2. Brief facts of the case are that the father of the applicant was working with the respondent as Record Keeper and after number of years of service while on duty, the father of the applicant had expired on 15.04.1999. Therefore, the applicant has submitted an application dated 02.09.1999 for compassionate appointment. It is the case of the applicant that High Power Committee of respondent considering the case of the applicant cleared his case of appointment on Group ‘C’ post as per list of approved cases (Annexure-B). However, the applicant was not given appointment and by letter dated 23.08.2023 it was informed to the applicant that his request for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected due to non availability of Group ‘C’ post in Ahmedabad Telecom District (Annexure-C). Therefore, the petitioner has submitted representation dated 2.03.2003. Thereafter, it was informed to the applicant by letter dated 01.04.2003 that the High Power Committee has decided to reject the request of the applicant for appointment on compassionate ground for the reasons stated therein.

3. Thereafter, another representation dated 12.04.2004 was submitted and by letter dated 06.01.2004, it was informed to the applicant that the case of the applicant had been rejected by the competent authority on the ground that same was considered earlier and no new vital aspect of the case is brought through the said representation.

4. It was submitted that on earlier occasion, the case of the applicant was considered and approved as can be seen from the list of ‘Annexure- B’. Therefore, it was surprising to find that on 23.08.2001, the respondent decided to reject the case of the applicant. It was further submitted that the case of the applicant was rejected on the ground of non availability of Group ‘C’ post in Ahmedabad Telecom District. It is contrary to document ‘Annexure-B’ in which it is clearly stated that the case of the applicant was approved. It is also submitted that vide letter dated 28.03.2003 it was informed by the applicant that he is willing to work anywhere. However, the said prayer was also rejected by communication dated 01.04.2003 on the ground that committee does not find that the family of the deceased in indigent condition. It was totally contrary to its earlier stand and the same was repeated in subsequent letter dated 06.01.2004.

5. After notice, “affidavit in reply” dated 09.12.2004 was filed. It was stated that the High Power Committee has considered the case of the applicant as per rules and records on merits and rejected the claim of the applicant. In respect of ‘Annexure-B’ produced by the applicant it was stated that Annexure-B produced by th