SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- S.P. Bharucha and Shivaraj V. Patil, JJ.

Civil Appal No. 2495 of 2000. D/d. 7.4.2000.

Director, Defence Metal Research Laboratory and another - Appellants

Versus

G. Murali - Respondent

Compassionate appointment - Belated claim - Eject - Claimant sought compassionate appointment two years after death of his father on attaining majority - Request rejected - CAT upheld rejection on the ground that "the family has been managing somehow for the last 18 years - As such the case is not covered under the existing instructions issued by the Government" - High Court reversed rejection by observing that the claimants application was rejected by the Tribunal "on flimsy grounds and on mere technicalities" - High Court directed creation of a post to accommodate claimant - View of the Tribunal endorsed by the Supreme Court and held, issue of direction for compassionate appointment, that too by creating a post, in the circumstances of the case was not warranted - However, in view of fair stand taken by claimants counsel in not supporting High Court judgment, the Supreme Court impressed upon the Government to reconsider claimant's case in the light of guidelines contained in Department of Personnel and Training instructions dated 17.2.1988.

[Paras 4 and 5]

ORDER

S.P. Bharucha, J. - Leave granted.

2. The order under appeal was passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The Central Administrative Tribunal had rejected the application of the writ petitioner (the respondent before us) for employment on compassionate grounds. The order of the Tribunal was the subject-matter of the writ petition. The order under appeal castigates the Tribunal for having rejected the application "on flimsy grounds and on mere technicalities". It says that the Tribunal should have appreciated that the writ petitioner was aged two years at the time of the death of his father and that the application for compassionate appointment had been made upon the attainment of majority by the writ petitioner. It says that any refusal, even on the ground of non-availability of posts, was not an excuse and a post had to be created, if not available.

3. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal took into consideration relevant facts to reject the application made to it, thus:

"The case of Shri G. Murali (son of late Shri G. Sreeramulu, JS II) for his employment on compassionate grounds has been examined. It is seen from the information furnished by the family that the family has been managing somehow for the last 18 years. As such the case is not covered under the existing instructions issued by the Government.

In view of the position explained above, it is regretted that it has not been found feasible to offer any employment to him on compassionate grounds."

4. We do not find any flimsy ground or technicalities in the Tribunal's order. In fact, we find the High Court's order to be unsustainable. There has been a failure to appreciate what the Tribunal had rightly taken into account, namely, that the writ petitioner and his family had coped without the compassionate appointment for about eighteen years. There was no warrant in such circumstances for directing the writ petitioner's appointment on compassionate grounds and that too with the direction to the respondents to the writ petition to create a post to accommodate him.

5. It is fair to state that learned counsel for the writ petitioner has not supported the order under appeal but has submitted that the respondents to the writ petition be asked to examine the case of the writ petitioner all over again in the light of the guidelines dated 17-2-1988 issued by the Government of India, Department of Personnel and Training. Having regard to the fair attitude taken, we would appreciate the respondents looking into the matter afresh in the light of these guidelines.

6. The civil appeal is allowed. The order under appeal is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.

Appeal allowed.