om:57-cl-2019-Jun — Applicant, son of Late Shri Vijayarajan along with his mother filed this application for compassionate appointment to him due to death of his father, a Government servant on 17-9-2009 while in service which was denied by Circle Relaxation Committee for want of relative indigency compared to others who were considered for compassionate appointment. The terminal benefits allowed to his mother (A-2) were noted which comparing with the other cases being large, Applicant's case was considered and awa

Applicant, son of Late Shri Vijayarajan along with his mother filed this application for compassionate appointment to him due to death of his father, a Government servant on 17-9-2009 while in service which was denied by Circle Relaxation Committee for want of relative indigency compared to others who were considered for compassionate appointment. The terminal benefits allowed to his mother (A-2) were noted which comparing with the other cases being large, Applicant's case was considered and awarded marks less than the last one selected. In that connection, the Tribunal held: "The main thrust is, terminal benefits is to be excluded while awarding the relative merit points for want of indigency of the Applicant. Further, the Tribunal held that the Applicant deserves to be reconsidered by re-evaluating and award appropriate points by Circle Relaxation Committee by ignoring terminal benefits. Hence directed that the Applicant's case should be considered along with other candidates" — The chunk pertains to the rejection of a compassionate appointment request by Circle Relaxation Committee (CRC), which was based on insufficient financial indigency compared to other candidates. The ... — Facts: Applicant's father, a Government servant in Department of Posts, died due to cardiac arrest on 17-9-2009. Hence Applicant requested for compassionate appointment to him. Applicant submitted details of the liabilities of his father, money spent for his daughter's marriage and other such details to consider his case for compassionate appointment. But without considering his grievances, his request for compassionate ground was rejected.

Respondents in their reply, gave details of the terminal benefits granted to Applicant's mother, A-2 herein. Circle Relaxation Committee (CRC) which met on 4-8-2011 gave the Applicant 41 points which was less than the point 48 obtained by the last Applicant who was selected for compassionate appointment. Respondents relied on the judgment of Apex Court in State of Haryana v. Rani Devi [1996 AIR SCW 3002 ], wherein it is stated that appointment is to be considered based on "rules, regulations or administrative instructions, financial condition of the family of the deceased to grant compassionate appointment".

Counsel for the Applicant argued that the case in this connection is deserving one. Taking into account the final settlement dues of his late father and the land value left by his father and the family pension including DA allowances granted to his mother should not be taken into account to deny the compassionate appointment to the Applicant.

Tribunal quoted Para. 19 of the judgment in "Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar [ 2015 (7) SCC 413 ], which is reproduced".

The main thrust in the above-quoted judgment is that terminal benefits are also to be excluded while awarding merit points for want of indigency of the Applicant.