Quddusi, J.:— Heard Sri J.K Mishra, learned Assistant Solicitor-General appearing for the petitioners and Sri S.P Mohanty, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1.
2. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners against the judgment and order, dated 20 January, 2003, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A No. 234 of 2002 which was filed by opposite party No. 1 against the rejection of her case for compassionate appointment and for a direction to the authority concerned to provide compassionate appointment in her favour, The Tribunal allowed the O.A, quashed order rejecting the case of the O.P No. 1 which was impugned therein and further directed the petitioners to provide a compassionate appointment (Group-D post) to the opposite party No. 1 by granting necessary relaxation in qualification, if any, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copies of its order.
3. We had also summoned the concerned record, which has been produced before us by Sri J.K Mishra, learned Assistant Solicitor-General, today.
4. The brief facts of the case are that the late husband of opposite party No. 1 was a driver in the office of the Superintendent of Post Offices, Cuttack South Division who expired on 1 March, 2000 leaving behind his widow (the present O.P No. 1), mother's two minor sons and one minor daughter. Thereafter, the opposite party No. 1 moved an application for compassionate appointment praying therein that since she was possessing the education qualification of Class-V pass only, her appointment was liable to be considered in Group-D post after relaxing the education qualification. There was only one vacancy in Group-D post available in compassionate quota and as many as 34 number of applicants were on the prey. The cases of four candidates including opposite party No. 1 found to be most deserving were to be considered.
5. On perusal of record, it is revealed that the following persons were considered by the Circle Relaxation Committee against Group-D post:
(1) Smt. Anjali Patnaik, W/o. Late K.T.V Ramanaya, Ex-Postman, Medical College, SO Rerhampur (Gm) Division.
(2) Sri Biranchi Bagh, S/o. Late Nirakar Bagh, Ex-Group-D, Rourkela-8 SO.
(3) Smt. Hiramani Munda, W/o. Late Jogeswar Munda, Exhibit PA Balasore HO.
(4) Smt. Tunirani Das, W/o. Late Natabar Das, Ex-Driver, Cuttack South Division (instant O.P No. 1).
The Committee found that there was only one post for the year 2001 under compassionate requirement quota and Smt. Anjali Patnaik was found to be the most deserving one amongst the aforesaid four candidates as she was having four marriageable daughters and a minor son to be taken care of. The C.R.C found that the other candidates are either having less number of dependants or they are themselves capable to earn their livelihood to support the family.
6. Consequently, a letter was sent to opposite party No. 1 on 23 January, 2002 by the Assistant Director (Rectt.) for CPMG Orissa Circle, Bhubaneswar intimating that the C.R.C considered her case for compassionate appointment and rejected the same. The reason for such rejection was that as she was paid the terminal benefit around Rs. 56,724 towards DCRG and also being paid family pension at Rs. 1713 + DR per month.
7. Thereafter, the aforesaid original application was filed by opposite party No. 1 and while disposing of the same, the Tribunal vide impugned order directed the petitioners to give her compassionate appointment.
8. Being aggrieved the instant writ petition has been filed inter alia on the ground that the Tribunal had not gone through the valid reasons furnished in the counter-affidavit to the original application specially that the case of the opposite party No. 1 for compassionate appointment was considered along with the similar other cases and the most deserving one as per availability of vacancy in the light of the instruction of the D.G of Posts, New Delhi was selected and the remaining cases were rejected and she could not be appointed due to non-availability of vacancy as per the guidelines issued under Paras. 7(a) and 7(b) of scheme for compassionate appointment circulated in O.M No. 14014/6/94-Estd(D), dated 9 October, 1998, of the department of personnel and Training, a copy of which has been filed as Annexure 5 to the writ petition. Since Sri J.K Mishra has submitted that the opposite party No. 1 could not have claimed the appointment as a matter of right and the Tribunal has committed manifest error of law in directing the instant petitioner to give compassionate appointment to the opposite party No. 1 which is against the case laws laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Smt. Asha Ramchandra Ambedkar [1994 (1) L.L.N 569], wherein it is held as follows, in Para. 19, at pages 572 and 573:
“Thus, apart from the directions as to appointment on compassionate grounds being against statutory provisions, such decision does not take note of this fact. Whatever it may be, the Court should not have directed the appointment on compassionate grounds. The jurisdiction under mandamus cannot be exercised in that fashion. It should have merely directed consideration of the claim of the second respondent. To straightway direct the appointment would only put the appellant-Corporation in piquant situation. The disobedience of this direction will entail contempt notwithstanding the fact that the appointment may not be warranted. This is yet another ground which renders the impugned judgment, dated 19 October, 1993 unsupportable. For these reasons, the civil appeal will stand allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.”
9. Sri S.P Mohanty, learned counsel for the opposite party No. 1 submitted that the case of the opposite party No. 1 was the most deserving case in comparison to the case of the other persons, namely Smt. Anjali Patnaik who was found by the C.R.C to be the most deserving candidate for compassionate appoinunent, due to the reason that Smt. Anjali Patnaik was a widow of an Ex.-postman whereas opposite party No. 1 is the widow of a driver. But this argument has no force as the committee comprising of three officers, viz., Chief Post Master General, Orissa Circle, Director of Post Offices, Bhubaneswar and Post Master General, Berhampur (Gm) Rgn. was authorized and it was the expert body to consider the most deserving candidate. Besides this, we have also considered that the widow of a postman who was having financial burden of four marriageable daughters besides a minor son was undoubtedly more deserving candidate for giving compassionate appointment in comparison to the opposite party No. 1 who was having two minor sons and one minor daughter aged about 8, 7 and 4 years respectively and also mother-in-law aged about 70 years. Besides this, we found that the opposite party No. 1 was getting a family pension at Rs. 1713 + DR per month. That apart according to the income certificate filed by her for the purpose of obtaining a compassionate appointment shows that her income is Rs. 5,500 per annum.
10. In view of the abovementioned facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that the Tribunal has committed manifest error of law in issuing direction to the instant petitioner to provide a compassionate appointment in Group-D post to the opposite party No. 1. In view of this, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is quashed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
N. Prusty, J.— I agree.
Petition allowed.