Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors  Insc 897 (5 September 2007)
Arijit Pasayat & D.K. Jain
APPEAL NO. 4058 OF 2007 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 15480 of 2005) Dr. ARIJIT
Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 18.3.2005 passed by the Division
Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the writ petition filed
by the appellant. By the said writ petition, the appellant had challenged
correctness of the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh
Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'CAT') dismissing his Original Application
(in short 'OA').
Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:
appellant's father retired on medical grounds and was receiving invalid
pension. At the relevant point of time, the appellant was minor and was
studying in school. He appeared in Punjab School Education Board Senior
Secondary (12th class) Examination, which was held in the month of March, 1997.
The result of the examination was declared on 19th May, 1998. Thereafter, the appellant filed an application for the
post of clerk seeking compassionate appointment. His date of birth is 12th June, 1980. The application was made on 20th July, 1998. The application was rejected by
the Post Master General, Punjab Region, Chandigarh by order dated 18.10.1999. The application was rejected only on the
ground "family was not found to be financially in indigent
appeal was filed before the Director General, Post Office, New Delhi, wherein
it was stated that the father of the appellant was getting Rs.1783/- per month,
was bed-ridden for more than 11 years due to paralytic attack and the appellant
had no moveable and immovable property anywhere in the country and was not
employed anywhere. The appeal was rejected. The appellant moved Central
Administrative Tribunal by filing an OA, which was rejected on the ground that
there was inordinate delay of 15 years in filing the application. The writ
petition questioning correctness of the said order, as noted above, was
dismissed by the High Court.
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that both CAT and the High Court
proceeded on a factually incorrect premise. CAT proceeded on the basis as if
father was rendered unfit medically because of paralytic attack in 1988 and was
retired in 1988. Actually and indisputably, the father had retired in 1994. The
application made by the appellant was rejected in 1999 and the appeal was
dismissed by order dated 17th
Therefore, the question of 15 years' delay did not arise. The High Court
proceeded on the basis as if the appellant's father had died in 1994 and the
claim for compassionate appointment was raised for the first time after about
ten years. In fact the father had not died and had retired and the application
was not made after about ten years. In fact, immediately after passing the
Senior Secondary Examination, the application was made for the post of clerk
since the minimum qualification was passing of Senior Secondary Examination,
which was held in the year 1997 and the result was declared in May, 1998. The
application was made immediately thereafter. In essence, it is submitted that
the findings recorded by the CAT and the High Court are unsustainable.
response, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that for
compassionate appointment the consideration is the need to urgent financial
needs. As the appellant was prosecuting studies after his father's retirement,
it has to be presumed that the family was not in indigent condition. It is to
be noted that the appellant's application was rejected on the ground that the
family was not found to be in financially indigent condition.
There is no indication as to on the basis of which materials the conclusion was
arrived at. It is also not clear as to what were the materials before the
Circle Level Selection Committee to conclude that the family was not in
financially indigent condition. To add to it, both CAT and the High Court
proceeded on factually erroneous premises, as has been highlighted by the
appellant and noted supra. Above being the position, the appeal deserves to be
allowed, which we direct.
orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court are set aside.
The matter is remitted to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench
for fresh hearing.
shall be permitted to place materials in support of their respective stand.
appeal is accordingly allowed with no order as to costs.
Pages: 1 2