JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by P.DHANABAL,J.)

This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioners / Postal

Department to issue a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate order or direction calling for the records relating to the order passed by the 1st respondent / Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.1715 of 2016

dated 13.08.2018 and to quash the same.

2. According to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent herein had filed

O.A. No.1715 of 2016 seeking for compassionate appointment. The case of the 2nd respondent is that his father S. Murugesan died on 05.04.1991 while in service as Group 'D' employee in Tiruverumbur Sub-Post Division. Consequently, the 2nd respondent's mother namely M.Santhayee had given a representation for compassionate appointment. The 2nd respondent's mother was informed that there was no vacancy at

Tiruchirappalli Division and hence her willingness was called for allotment to other Division to expedite the process of getting appointment early. But she did not respond to the letter of the Postal Department dated 18.12.1995. However, her name was kept in the waiting list for appointment in Group 'D' post. Since she was approved to be kept in waiting list for compassionate appointment, her willingness was sought for by the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Tiruchirappalli Division vide letter dated 29.06.1998 as to whether she was willing to work under leave arrangements in Post Office near her native place till the allotment was made by the Postal Department / petitioners. The 2nd respondent's mother replied through her letter dated NIL, received on 08.07.1998 stating that she was physically unwell and unable to work as Group 'D' employee, instead she requested to consider her son / 2nd respondent herein for compassionate appointment. The request of the mother of the 2nd respondent was not answered and hence she filed O.A. No.1427 of 2011 and the same was disposed off with directions that “considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant, though there is a delay in approaching the Tribunal, without going into the delay and the merits of the case, we direct the applicant to approach the respondents to consider their respective representations and if any aggrieved order is passed the applicants are at liberty to approach this Tribunal. With the above observations, the OA is disposed of the admission stage itself”. In compliance of that directions, an order was passed by the 1st respondent on 30.12.2014 by stating that request of the 2nd respondent was already rejected by letters dated 15.10.2003, 30.03.2005 and 28.02.2012 respectively on the ground of abolition of waiting list and also informed that an appointment made on compassionate ground to one person cannot be transferred to another person and any request for the same should invariably be rejected.

2.1. Thereafter, the 2nd respondent filed O.A. No.1715 of 2016 by challenging the said order dated 30.12.2014 without disputing the fact that the claim of compassionate appointment was already rejected on repeated occasions as early as on 15.10.2003, 30.03.2005 and 28.02.2012 on the ground of abolition of waiting list which remained unchallenged and only on the ground that since no appointment order was issued in the name of the 2nd respondent's mother, the question of transferring appointment would not arise and since the mother of the 2nd respondent had not given her willingness, the 2nd respondent could be appointed. The Tribunal without considering the earlier rejection orders passed by the 1st respondent directed to consider the request of the 2nd respondent for compassionate appointment independently for the offer made to his mother.

2.2. Between 1991 to 2000, 602 applications were approved in excess of vacancies earmarked for compassionate appointment and were included in the waiting list for future absorption. In the meantime, they were allowed to work on short term basis in leave vacancies purely on humanit