Oral Order:

1. Heard the counsel for the respondents as none appears on behalf of the applicant.

2. In view of order dated 08.01.2018, it was made clear that in case any adjournment is sought by either of the parties, the case shall proceed under rule 15 or 16 of CAT (Procedure) Rules, 1987 as the case may be. The record further reveals that none appeared for the applicant even on 08.11.2017 and 08.01.2018. Hence, this petition is being disposed of finally on the basis of pleadings and the material available on record after hearing of the counsel for the respondents.

3. This petition has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:

a. That the Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 08.05.2014 as contained in Annexure No. A-1 and direct the opposite parties to reconsider the case of the applicant.

b. Any other relief as considered proper by this Hon’ble Tribunal be granted to the applicant.

c. Cost of the application be awarded in favour of the applicant.

4. The impugned order which is the subject matter of the O.A, dated 08.05.2014 is reproduced herein below for ready reference:

'LANGUAGE'

5. The facts giving rise to this petition are that father of the applicant namely Ram Jatan died on 22.10.2012 in harness while working as GDS in Devhat, Ambedbar Nagar. The deceased survived by his wife Smt. Gayatri Devi, his daughter Tara Devi and two sons Dinesh Kumar and Saurabh Kumar, all are major. The applicant being youngest son of the deceased employee applied for compassionate appointment. His claim was considered and declined on the ground that family of the deceased employee is not living in penurious condition and is not entitled to any compassionate appointment.

6. It has been contended in the application that father Ram Jatan was holding 0.0069 hectare land which was divided in three parts Gayatri Devi, Dinesh Kumar and Saurabh Kumar and as such 0.0023 hectare land comes in the share of the applicant. It was also contended that the income certificate was wrongly issued showing income of Rs. 6000/- from the land. It was further contended that the applicant is still unemployed and as such the grounds on which the application was rejected is not sustainable.

7. Reply has been filed by the respondents wherein it has been contended that the case of the applicant was considered in the light of the circular issued on 14.12.2010. The circular deals on the method of adjudging indigency of family. After complying the aforesaid circular, it was found that the applicant had secured only 33 merit points. It was further contended in Para 7 of the reply that as per above mentioned letter of Directorate, atleast merit 50 points or above are must for consideration for grant of compassionate appointment. So the case of the applicant was rejected by CRC on 24.04.2014 and 25.04.2014 the applicant was informed accordingly.

8. Counsel for the respondents fails to demonstrate that there is any minimum marks in the scheme. Nothing has been brought on record that the applicant was considered alongwith other candidates seeking compassionate appointment and more deserving candidates were preferred for grant of compassionate appointment. In absence thereof, the order cannot be allowed to sustain and accordingly is liable to be set aside.

9. Consequently, the O.A is allowed. The impugned order dated 08.05.2014 is set aside. Respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the applicant in accordance with law in the next meeting of CRC for compassionate appointment on the b

asis of fresh evaluation of financial condition of the family of the applicant in accordance with law. The result of the same may be communicated to the applicant in writing. This exercise may be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 10. With the above directions, the petition is accordingly disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.