Compassionate appointment not a vested right; rejected due to delay, substantial terminal benefits exceeding limits, and family self-sufficiency.

ORDER

The applicant has filed the instant Original Application seeking the following relief(s):-

“(a) Issue an order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 2.6.2022 (Annexure no.1) passed by the Narcotics Commissioner, Central Bureauof Narcotics, Gwalior (respondent no.2)

(b) Issue an order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned communication/order dated 8.3.2017 (Annexure no.2) passed by the Assistant Narcotics Commissioner, Central Bureau of Narcotics, Gwalior (respondent no.3).

(c) Issue any other and further order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(d) Award the cost of the O.A. to the applicant. ”

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the father of the applicant namely Sri Dashrath Singh Yadav, while working as Constable under the office of General Manager, Govrnment of Opium and Alkaloid, Mahuabagh, Ghazipur, died in harness on 31.12.2014 leaving behind his widow and five children including the applicant. After the sad demise of her husband, the mother of the applicant was issued PPO vide letter dated 2.3.2015. According to the applicant, his father was sole bread winner of the deceased family. The applicant’s mother moved an application dated 1.10.2015 with a request to grant compassionate appointment in favour of the applicant. When the applicants did not receive any response, he preferred another representation on 17.1.2017 with a prayer to consider his claim for appointment on compassionate grounds. To this, the respondent no.4 vide letter dated 14.2.2017 informed the respondent no.5 regarding the applicant’s claim for compassionate appointment with a request to take appropriate steps.

2.1 According to the O.A., the applicant received a communication dated 8.3.2017 from the respondent no.2 whereby it was informed that the committee concerned had recommended for closure of the applicant as the deceased family had received terminal benefit amounting to Rs. 12,73,024/- and also owns an agriculture land. Being aggrieved, the applicant again submitted representations dated 20.3.2017 and 23.3.2017 before the respondent no.3 and respondent no.4 reiterating his grievance, but the respondents did not pay any heed. The applicant, thereafter, preferred a representation before the Finance Minister on 9.2.2021 requesting therein to direct the respondents concerned to consider the claim of the applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds. The applicant, thereafter, assailed the aforesaid notice dated 8.3.2017 before the Hon’ble High Court, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 29.7.2021 on the ground of alternative remedy. Thereafter, the applicant approached this Tribunal under Diary No. 3306 of 2021, which came to be disposed of vide judgment and order dated 4.3.2022 with a direction to the respondents to consider the O.A. registered as Diary No. 3306 of 2021 as fresh representation of the applicant and pass a reasoned and speaking order. In compliance of order of this Tribunal, the respondent no.2 again rejected the claim of the applicant vide order dated 2.6.2022, which is under challenge in the instant O.A.

3. On notice, the respondents have contested the claim of the applicants by filing a detailed Counter Affidavit wherein they have stated that the applicant is the son of late Sri Dashrath Singh Yadav, Havaldar, who expired on 31.12.2014 in service. According to the respondents, a meeting of Compassionate Appointment Committee (CAC) was held on 8.4.2016 in which 126 cases including the applicant was put up bef