##PAGE1##

1 OA No.310/00966/2024

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CHENNAI BENCH

OA/310/00966/2024

Dated this 30^th day of January, Two Thousand Twenty Six

CORAM :

HON'BLE MR M. SWAMINATHAN JUDICIAL MEMBER

M. Sagunthala,

W/o Murthy,

No.23, Kattu Naicken Street,

Mamallapuram,

Chengalpattu District. .. Applicant

By Advocate M/s. B. Devakumar

Vs.

1. The Director

Department of Atomic energy,

Central Services Organization,

Kalpakkam,

Chengalpattu District.

2. The Chief Administrative Officer,

Department of Atomic energy,

Central Services Organization,

Kalpakkam,

Chengalpattu District.

3. The Associate Director,

Department of Atomic energy,

Central Services Organization,

Kalpakkam,

Chengalpattu District.

##PAGE2##

2 OA No.310/00966/2024

4. The Administrative Officer,

Department of Atomic energy,

Central Services Organization,

Kalpakkam,

Chengalpattu District.

5. The Assistant Personal Officer,

Department of Atomic energy,

Central Services Organization,

Kalpakkam,

Chengalpattu District. .. Respondents

By Advocate Mr. K. Rajendran, SCGSC

##PAGE3##

3 OA No.310/00966/2024

ORDER

(Pronounced by Hon'ble Mr. M. Swaminathan, Judicial Member)

Aggrieved by the rejection of her request for compassionate

appointment in favour of her son by the impugned order, dated

11.10.2023, the applicant has filed the OA for setting aside the said order

and to pass such orders as this Tribunal deem fit and proper and thus

render justice.

2. The facts that are necessary for adjudication of the OA are as

follows:

The Applicant’s husband, Late C. Murthy, was employed as a permanent

employee in the respondent’s office under GSO IC No. 549, Helper (D)

(CM) in the Civil Department, Department of Atomic Energy, Kalpakkam.

While in service, the Applicant’s husband suffered a stroke, was

hospitalized, and subsequently passed away on 14.10.2015. The

Applicant’s son, Jai Ganesh, belongs to the Scheduled Tribe (ST)

community and has completed his education up to the 10th Standard. The

Applicant submits that her son has made several representations to the

respondents seeking appointment on compassionate grounds; however, the

respondents failed to consider the same. The Applicant further submits that

her daughter has also given her No Objection Certificate (NOC) for

##PAGE4##

4 OA No.310/00966/2024

providing compassionate appointment to her brother, Jai Ganesh. As there

was no response from the respondents, the Applicant was constrained to

approach this Hon’ble Tribunal by filing OA No. 511 of 2023. The said

OA was disposed of by this Tribunal by order, dated 04.07.2023, directing

the respondents to consider the Applicant’s claim and pass a speaking

order. Pursuant thereto, the respondents rejected the claim for

compassionate appointment vide the impugned order, dated 11.10.2023.

Hence, the present OA has been filed challenging the said impugned

rejection order.

3. The learned counsel for the Applicant submitted that although the

Applicant’s husband expired on 14.10.2015, the Applicant’s son has not

been granted compassionate appointment till date. Such prolonged

inaction on the part of the respondents has severely affected the livelihood

of the Applicant’s family and amounts to a violation of the Applicant’s

fundamental rights. It was further submitted that despite several

representations made by the Applicant and her son, the respondents failed

to provide compassionate appointment. The learned counsel contended

that the documents placed on record clearly establish that due to lapses and

negligence on the part of the respondents, the Applicant’s son was

deprived of consideration for compassionate appointment.

##PAGE5##

5 OA No.310/00966/2024

4. It was further submitted that the second respondent, while passing

the impugned order, dated 11.10.2023 pursuant to the directions of this

Tribunal in OA No. 511 of 2023, rejected the claim on the grounds that the

Applicant’s son was overaged and possessed lower educational

qualifications. The learned counsel submitted that repeated representations

made by the Applicant and her son were not acted upon, and due to suc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document