MUKESH KUMAR versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 9 S.C.R. 711 · Decided: 05-09-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

+ 
/ 
> 
MUKESH KUMAR 
A 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
SEPTEMBER 5, 2007 
[DR.ARIJITPASAYAT ANDD.K.JAIN,JJ.) 
B 
Service Law: 
Compassionate appointment-Employee took retirement on medical 
ground when his. son was minor-Son, after attaining the age of majority and C 
minimum qualification, applied/or appointment on compassionate grounds-
Application rejected by authority-Appeal affirmed by appellate authority-
0.A. dismissed by Central Administrative Tribunal-Challenge to-Dismissed 
by High Court-On appeal, Held: There is no indication as to the material 
on the basis of which the authorities rejected the application for appointment D 
holding that the family of the applicant was not in financially indigent 
conditions-Both the Courts below also proceeded on factually erroneous 
premise in rejecting the petitions-Hence, orders of the Courts below set 
aside and matter remitted to CAT for adjudication afresh-Directions issued 
Father of the appellant who was serving in the Posts and Telegram E 
Office took retirement on medical ground; at that time, appellant was a minor. 
Appellant, after passing the school Board examinations; filed an application 
seeking appointment on compassionate ground. The application was rejected 
by the Post Master General on the ground that family of the applicant was not 
found to be financially in indigent condition. Aggrieved, the appellant filed an 
appeal before the Director General, Post Office, who had rejected the same. F 
The appellant moved Central Administrative Tribunal by filing an OA, which 
was rejected by CAT on the ground that there was inordinate delay of 15 years 
in filing the application. The writ petition filed by the appellant, questioning 
correctness of the order of the CAT, was dismissed by the High Court. Hence 
the present appeal. 
G 
Appellant contended that both CAT and the High Court proceeded on a 
factually incorrect premise; and that immediately after passing the Senior 
Secondary Examination, he had filed an application seeking appointment on 
compassionate ground for the post of clerk. 
711 
II 
712 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2007] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
Respondent submitted that for compassionate appointment the 
B 
consideration is urgent financial needs. As the appellant was continuing his 
studies even after retirement of his father, it has to be presumed that the family 
was not in indigent condition. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: The appellant's application for compassionate appointment was 
rejected on the ground that the family was not found to be in financially 
indigent condition. TJiere is no indication as to the material on the basis of 
which the conclusion was arrived at by the authorities. It is also not clear as 
to what were the materials placed before the Circle Level Selection Committee 
C 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 premise, 
as has been highlighted by the appellant and noted by this Court. The orders 
of the Central Administrative Tribunal and the High Court are .set aside. The 
matter is remitted to the Central Administrative Tribunal for fresh hearing. 
D 
[714-A, B, CJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4058 of2007. 
.._ 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 18.03.2005 of the High Court 
of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition No. 20292 of 2004. 
E 
Pradeep Gupta and K.K. Mohan for the Appellant. 
F 
Mohit Chaudhary, Rajni Ohri, V.K. Verma, Manish Jain and Puja Sharma 
for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ARIJIT PASAY AT, J. I. 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 
G 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: 
H 
The appellant's father retired on medical grounds_ and was receiving 
MUKESHKUMARv. U.O.I.[PASAYAT,J.] 
713 
>· 
invalid pension. At the relevant point of time, the appellant was minor and A 
was studying in school. He appeared in Punjab School Education Board 
Senior Secondary (12th class) Examination, which was held in the month of 
March, 199

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.