Compassionate appointment is not a right, but an exception necessitating proof of financial distress and must be evaluated against established criteria and guidelines.

ORDER

Present Original Application has been filed under Section19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 , seeking the following relief:-

“(1) to issue a direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order No.GMTD/MRZ/L/C/2017-18 Dated: 23-12-2017 passed by respondent no.3 in pursuance of the Hon'ble Tribunal's order dated 31-10-2017 passed in O.A. No.330/00183/2016, by which the respondent no.3 has rejected the representation dated 01-10-2015 of the applicant filed for appointment to the applicant under Dying-in- Harness Rules, according to his ability.

(2) to issue order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents by this Hon'ble Tribunal to consider and appoint the applicant under Dying-in-Harness Rules, according to his ability, otherwise, the applicant and his family member will suffer irreparable loss and will lost the employment.

(3) to issue order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing further direction or any other suitable relief which the applicant is legally entitled and which the Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(4) to award the costs of the application to the applicant.”

2. Brief facts of the case are that the father of the applicant died on 05.08.2013 during his service on the post of Sub Divisional Engineer in the office of respondent no.3. Thereafter, the applicant moved a representation before respondent no.4 for compassionate appointment in the month of October, 2013 and then again on 01.10.2015 with all the documents. Then, the applicant filed an O.A. No.183/2016 which was decided on 31.10.2017 with the direction to the respondents to decide the representation of the applicant. When no order was communicated to the applicant about his representation, the applicant filed a Contempt Petition No.136 of 2018. Thereafter, the concerned respondent passed an order dated 23.12.2017 rejecting the representation of the applicant dated 01.10.2015 which was communicated to the applicant only with the affidavit of compliance dated 02.01.2019. The applicant has challenged the order dated 23.12.2017 through this O.A.

3. Heard Shri Narendra Kumar Srivastava assisted by Shri M.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Arvind Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.

4. Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the impugned order dated 23.12.2017 passed by respondent no.3 is illegal, malicious and arbitrary. Respondent no.3 arbitrarily evaluated the eligibility of the applicant and prepared the check list and awarded 13 points with an intention to reject the representation of the applicant. He argued that no one approached the residential locality of the applicant’s family with regard to the weightage point system to evaluate the eligibility of the applicant as per the policy guidelines of BSNL circulated vide letter no.273-18/2005-Pers-IV dated 27.06.2007. He states that the financial condition of the family of the deceased is not good and the dependents have no other source of income. Learned counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance on the judgement of the Hon’ble High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ -A No. 148 of 2008 ( Pramod Kumar Rajak vs Registrar General High Court Allahabad and Others) decided on 23.09.2011. The relied upon paragraphs 29 and 34 are as under:-

“29. Thus, in view of afore-stated legal position, it is clear that while considering the case of compassionate appointment of dependent of government se