1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for compassionate appointment.
2. The case of the petitioner is that the father of the petitioner was serving as Talati cum Mantri in the establishment of respondent authority and had expired on 28.08.2008 due to accident. The petitioner has applied for the compassionate appointment on 20.10.2008.
3. The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is a girl and she is of more than 21 years of age. The mother of the petitioner has underwent Allaertory Canal Operation and she is bedridden and hence, she is not in a position to apply for compassionate appointment and therefore, the petitioner, being the daughter of the deceased employee has applied for compassionate appointment.
4. The respondent No.1 in its affidavit in reply has stated the order dated 23.09.2009 is a reasoned order and they have passed the same after considering the relevant aspects of the case. It is further submitted by respondent No.1 that the petitioner family is getting family pension of Rs.8337/- and after the death of the deceased the petitioner-family has been paid Rs.8,12,860/- as retirement dues of the deceased and hence, the family of the petitioner is not in a pitiable condition.
5. I have heard both the parties. In my view, the petitioner is major and hence, is not dependent. The certificate produced by the petitioner, showing the expenses of approximately Rs.80,000/- occurred for her mother is dated 31.12.2012 and that is after filing of the petition. The period for the said treatment is not clarified.
6. On the other hand respondent has filed its affidavit in reply. The relevant portion of the same para 5 and 6, reads as under:
"5. I state that the order dated 23.09.2009 (Annexure-A) to the petition is a reasoned order and passed after considering all relevant aspects of the matter and looking to the family pension of Rs.8773/- and payment made to the family members of Rs.8,12,860/-. Therefore, it cannot be said that the family of the petitioner is in a pitiable condition.
6. I state that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of 2011. 13. SCC in case of union of india V/s D.Kishore has also considered the financial aspect in case of compassionate appointment."
7. In view of decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court, in case of Local Administration Department and another v. M. Selvanayagam @ Kumaravelu, reported in (2011) 13 SCC 42, the decision taken by the respondent is just and proper. Hence, in my view the petition is devoid of any merits and the same deserves to be dismissed and the same is dismissed.
[K S JHAVERI, J] Ankit* Top