http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  4058 of 2007

PETITIONER: Mukesh Kumar

RESPONDENT: Union of India & Ors

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 05/09/2007

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & D.K. JAIN

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

CIVIL APPEAL NO.         4058           OF 2007 (Arising out of SLP(C) No. 15480 of 2005)

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1.      Leave granted.

2.      Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 18.3.2005  passed by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High  Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. By  the said writ petition, the appellant had challenged  correctness of the order passed by the Central Administrative   Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (hereinafter referred to as ’CAT’)  dismissing his Original Application (in short ’OA’).  3.      Background facts in a nutshell are as follows:

The appellant’s father retired on medical grounds and  was receiving invalid pension. At the relevant point of time, the  appellant was minor and was studying in school. He appeared  in Punjab School Education Board Senior Secondary (12th  class) Examination, which was held in the month of March,  1997. The result of the examination was declared on 19th May,  1998. Thereafter, the appellant filed an application for the post  of clerk seeking compassionate appointment. His date of birth  is 12th June, 1980. The application was made on 20th July,  1998. The application was rejected by the Post Master  General, Punjab Region, Chandigarh by order dated  18.10.1999. The application was rejected only on the ground  "family was not found to be financially in indigent condition".

4.      An appeal was filed before the Director General, Post  Office, New Delhi, wherein it was stated that the father of the  appellant was getting Rs.1783/- per month, was bed-ridden   for more than 11 years due to paralytic attack and the  appellant had no moveable and immovable property anywhere  in the country and was not employed anywhere. The appeal  was rejected. The appellant moved Central Administrative  Tribunal by filing an OA, which was rejected on the ground  that there was inordinate delay of 15 years in filing the   application. The writ petition questioning correctness of the  said order, as noted above, was dismissed by the High Court.

5.      Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that both  CAT and the High Court proceeded on a factually incorrect  premise.        CAT proceeded on the basis as if father was

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

rendered unfit medically because of paralytic attack in 1988  and was retired in 1988. Actually and indisputably, the father  had retired in 1994. The application made by the appellant  was rejected in 1999 and the appeal was dismissed by order  dated 17th February, 2000. Therefore, the question of 15 years’  delay did not arise. The High Court proceeded on the basis as  if the appellant’s father had died in 1994 and the claim for  compassionate appointment was raised for the first time after  about ten years. In fact the father had not died and had  retired and the application was not made after about ten  years. In fact, immediately after passing the Senior Secondary  Examination, the application was made for the post of clerk  since the minimum qualification was passing of Senior  Secondary Examination, which was held in the year 1997 and  the result was declared in May, 1998. The application was  made immediately thereafter. In essence, it is submitted that  the findings recorded by the CAT and the High Court are  unsustainable.

6.      In response, the learned counsel for the respondent   submitted that for compassionate appointment the  consideration is the need to urgent financial needs. As the  appellant was prosecuting studies after his father’s retirement,  it has to be presumed that the family was not in indigent  condition. It is to be noted that the appellant’s application was  rejected on the ground that the family was not found to be in  financially indigent condition.

7.      There is no indication as to on the basis of which  materials the conclusion was arrived at. It is also not clear as  to what were the materials before the Circle Level Selection  Committee to conclude that the family was not in financially  indigent condition. To add to it, both CAT and the High Court  proceeded on factually erroneous premises, as has been  highlighted by the appellant and noted supra. Above being the  position, the appeal deserves to be allowed, which we direct.  The orders of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the  High Court are set aside. The matter is remitted to the Central  Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench for fresh hearing.  Parties shall be permitted to place materials in support of their  respective stand.

8.      The appeal is accordingly allowed with no order as to  costs.