Compassionate appointments are discretionary based on need; mere claims without financial hardship do not warrant entitlement.

J U D G M E N T

Shaffique, J.

The applicants in O.A. No. 666 of 1997 of Central Administrative Tribunal are the petitioners herein. The application was filed for appointment on compassionate appointment on account of the death of the deceased employee P.S.Gopalakrishnan, who died while working as HSG-I, Sub/Record Office, Postal Department in Thiruvananthapuram Division on 17.4.2003.

2. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit stating that the claim of the petitioners along with the other applicants were considered by the committee and in respect of 12 cases when the family owned land and house, the claim for compassionate appointment was rejected. It is not disputed that the petitioner's family was not in possession of land and building. Argument of the learned counsel for appellant is that the property was encumbered and had liabilities as a result of which the case of the appellants could not have been taken into consideration along with others who were having land and building. The Tribunal had rejected the request of the petitioners on the ground that the selection process is not arbitrary or illegal and no ulterior motive could be attributed to the official respondents.

3. Having gone through the order passed by the Tribunal, it is clear that same opportunity had been granted to all the applicants who had requested for compassionate appointments. The persons who had land and building were not given such appointment. It is not a solitary instance of such a view being taken by the committee. The same yardstick was applied to similarly placed persons. Therefore it cannot be said that the committee had acted in an arbitrary manner. It is settled position of law that compassionate appointments is not a vested right and should not be granted as a normal method of appointment. Such appointments depends upon various factors. When the committee had found that the applicants are not indigent persons, there is no rule that appointment on compassionate ground should be granted. It could be noticed that the applicants had survived for the last 9 years and there is no reason why such an appointment on compassionate ground should be granted at this point of time.

That being the situation we do not think that there is any ground to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal and the Original Petition is dismissed.

(MANJULA CHELLUR, CHIEF JUSTICE)

(A.M.SHAFFIQUE, JUDGE)

rka