Judgment:
1. Heard Mr. V. Venkateswara Rao, Ld. Counsel appearing for the applicant and Mr. Jaya Prakash Babu, Ld. Counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. It is the case of the applicant that her husband while working as Upper Division Clerk in the office of Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Kurnool Range, Kunool, expired on 16.09.2000 due to heart attack, leaving behind the applicant and two daughters aged about 15 and 21 years respectively. The applicant submitted an application for appointment on compassionate grounds in the respondents' office as per the prescribed proforma on 18.10.2000. Since there was no response to the application submitted by the applicant, she submitted a representation to the 4th Respondent on 29.8.2003, requesting him to consider her case for appointment on compassionate grounds. In response to the said representation, an inquiry was conducted on 30.08.2003 by the Inspector of Income Tax to inquire about the economic and living conditions of the family of the deceased employee. It is contended by the applicant that in report dated 1st September, 2003, the Inspector of Income Tax had categorically stated that the family of the deceased government servant is living in poor and pathetic conditions without even minimum living conditions with severe financial problems. The said report of the Inspector of Income Tax along with the application of the applicant was forwarded to the 3rd Respondent by the 4th Respondent vide his Letter No. JCIT/KNL/Comp. Appt./2003-04 dated 5th September, 2003. It is also the contention of the applicant that the death benefits received on account of the death of her husband were totally utilized for the payment of debts raised for the treatment of the husband of the applicant. The family consisting of the applicant and two daughters, one of whom is of a marriageable age, are solely dependent on the family pension of the applicant, which is only Rs. 3344/-. It is the grievance of the applicant that the 3rd Respondent even without considering the factual condition of the applicant and her family, vide impugned letter No. F. No. 169 (Rej.)/Estt/2003-04 dated 17th March, 2004, had communicated the rejection of her case for appointment on compassionate grounds. By the said letter, it was informed that the case was forwarded to the Committee and the Committee has not recommended the case as the case is 3 years old and not in accordance with the DOP &T O.M. in F. No. 14014/19/2000/Estt. (D) dated 5.5.2003. The said letter of the 3rd Respondent dated 17.3.2004 is annexed as Annexure-VI at page-13 of the O.A. Questioning the said letter of the 3rd Respondent, the applicant has approached this Tribunal seeking for a declaration that the letter No. F. No. 169 (Rej)/Estt./2003-04 dated 17.3.2004 is illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional and to set aside the same by directing the respondents to consider the applicant for appointment in a suitable post on compassionate grounds with all consequential benefits.
3. Respondents have contested the application by filing counter reply and additional counter reply. The applicant has also filed rejoinder to the first counter reply filed by the respondents.
4. I find from the para-2 of the additional counter reply, respondents have stated that the D.O.P.T.'s O.M. No. 14014/19/2002-Estt(D) dated 05.05.2003 stipulates that the maximum time a person's name can be kept under consideration for offering appointment on compassionate grounds is 03 years, subject to the condition that the prescribed Committee certifies the penurious condition of the applicant at the end of the first and second year. In terms of the said O.M., the Committee reviewed the case of the applicant along with other applicants, but did not certify the penurious condition of the applicant for consideration for next time. Therefore, her case could not be taken up for a review for 3rd time. Hence, the applicant's case was disposed of in accordance with the DOPT's instructions. It, therefore, appears from the said contentions of the respondents that while considering the family condition of the applicant for consideration by C.S.C. for providing compassionate appointment, the respondents have considered the penurious family condition of the applicant in compare to others and, on comparison basis, found that the applicant is not fit for consideration for the 3rd time. The D.O.P.T. instructions dated 05.05.2003 (Supra) is annexed by the respondents at page-4 of the 1st Counter reply. The relevant paragraph-3 of the said instructions are re-produced as below: 3. The maximum time a person's name can be kept under consideration for offering compassionate appointment will be three years, subject to the condition that the prescribed Committee has reviewed and certified the penurious condition of the applicant at the end of the first and the second year. After three years, if compassionate appointment is not possible to be offered to the applicant, his case will be finally closed, and will not be considered again.
A plain reading of the said instructions and the relevant paragraph (supra), would show that for the purpose of considering the candidature of a person for providing compassionate appointment, the penurious condition of the family of that person is to be considered, but not in comparison with the other applicants. Comparison will be done only at the time of considering the case by the Circle Selection Committee for providing compassionate appointments. It is not the case of the respondents that during the last one year, the condition of the applicant's family is improved.
5. From the contentions of the respondents in para-2 of the additional counter reply, it is seen that the applicant's case was otherwise considered to be fit for considering for the third time, but thereafter, it was rejected by comparing her family condition with other applicants' family condition. In view of the above, I am of the view that it is a fit case to be allowed by quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 17.3.2004.
6. I, therefore, quash and set aside the impugned order dated 17.3.2004 and direct the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for compassionate appointment for the third time by the Circle Selection Committee in the next meeting. The respondents shall communicate the decision of the Circle Selection Committee to the applicant within one month from the date the committee meets.
7. In the result, the O.A. is allowed to the extent indicated above.
However, there shall be no order as to costs.