Skip to content


D. Babu Vamsidhar, S/O. Late Prabhakar Vs. the Director, Shar Centre, Sriharikota - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtCentral Administrative Tribunal CAT Hyderabad
Decided On
Case NumberOriginal Application No. 555 of 2008
Judge
AppellantD. Babu Vamsidhar, S/O. Late Prabhakar
RespondentThe Director, Shar Centre, Sriharikota
Advocates:Counsel for the Applicant : N. Ramesh, Advocate. Counsel for the Respondent : G. Jaya Prakash Babu, Sr. CGSC.
Excerpt:
.....not a fit case for recommendation. 4. as seen from the said minutes, earlier the other son of the deceased employee by name d.v.v. pradeep had applied for compassionate appointment and at that time, the condition of the family of the d. prabhakar was considered and found that it was not a fit case for recommendation for compassionate appointment as the family was not in distressing condition when compared to other cases. after the application of d.v.v. pradeep, which was filed within one year of the death of the deceased employee, was rejected, thereafter, the wife of the deceased employee sought for appointment on compassionate grounds to the other son of the deceased. under the compassionate appointment scheme, it is not the status of the applicant that is to be considered, but it is.....
Judgment:

ORAL ORDER:

(As per Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Lakshmana Reddy, Vice-Chairman)

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Senior Standing Counsel for respondents.

2. This application is filed seeking for a declaration that the action of the respondent in not providing appointment to the applicant under compassionate grounds is illegal, arbitrary; and for a consequential direction to the respondent to consider his case for appointment to any suitable post under compassionate grounds.

3. Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents produced the report of the committee constituted to scrutinize pending applications for grant of compassionate appointment in SDSC SHAR dated 19.11.2003. As seen from the said report, the Committee considered the relative merits of 46 applicants applied for appointment under compassionate grounds. The committee, after considering all the cases on the basis of the guidelines issued by the DOPT, found that there are only two cases without adequate means of livelihood deserving additional benefit of appointment in Govt. Service on compassionate grounds. In those two cases, only minimum amount of family pension is admissible and there are minor children. The case of the family of the deceased D. Prabhakar, the father of the applicant herein, was considered against Sl. No. 24 and found that the family pension admissible is Rs.4333/- and also found that the children are grown up and hence, not a fit case for recommendation.

4. As seen from the said minutes, earlier the other son of the deceased employee by name D.V.V. Pradeep had applied for compassionate appointment and at that time, the condition of the family of the D. Prabhakar was considered and found that it was not a fit case for recommendation for compassionate appointment as the family was not in distressing condition when compared to other cases. After the application of D.V.V. Pradeep, which was filed within one year of the death of the deceased employee, was rejected, thereafter, the wife of the deceased employee sought for appointment on compassionate grounds to the other son of the deceased. Under the compassionate appointment scheme, it is not the status of the applicant that is to be considered, but it is the status of the family of the deceased employee which is to be considered. The status of the family of the deceased employee on the death of the deceased was already considered and found that it was not deserving for recommendation for compassionate appointment to any of the children of the deceased. Without disclosing the fact that earlier application made by D.V.V. Pradeep for compassionate appointment was rejected, the present application is filed. As the CRC has already considered the status of the family of the deceased employee D. Prabhakar and rejected the same, the applicant is not entitled to file another application seeking compassionate appointment. Hence, I do not find any merit in this application.

5. In the result, O.A. is dismissed as devoid of merits. There shall be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //