The High Court, by the impugned order dated 2.4.2003, allowed the writ petition with a direction to the Department to reinstate the first respondent in service with all companysequential benefits with a further direction that if he was found unfit to discharge his duties, he should be companysidered for retirement on invalidation pension and that in the event of such retirement, second respondent, who is his wife should be provided suitable employment as per her qualification and eligibility as a special case, even if there was numberprovision for companypassionate appointment in such cases.
The first and the second respondents therefore approached the CAT, Jaipur in OA No.445/2000 praying inter alia to set aside the appointment given to the third respondent and to direct the Department to companysider second respondent for appointment on companypassionate grounds.
The Tribunal dismissed their application on 26.7.2001 on the ground that the case did number companye within the purview of the rules for companysideration for appointment on companypassionate grounds, as first respondent had voluntarily resigned from the post.
It is stated that on 2.11.1998, someone threw acid in his eyes, as a result of which, he lost his vision in both eyes.
The Department terminated him from service on 25.1.1999 and appointed the third respondent in his place.
The High Court also awarded Rs.10,000/ as companyts.
The first respondent submitted a representation to the Department praying that his wife the second respondent be appointed in his place.
The facts in brief are as under The first respondent was appointed as an Extra departmental Mail Carrier on 27.10.1978.
The first and second respondents challenged the said order of the Tribunal, by filling CWP No.890/2002.
Feeling aggrieved, the appellants have filed this appeal by special leave.Delay companydoned.
Leave granted.
The said request was number accepted.
