On July 9, 1996, the respondent made another representation for appointment on companypassionate grounds.
After payment of the monetary dues to the respondent, his claim for appointment on companypassionate basis was taken up and he was asked to submit proof of passing the S.S.L.C. examination.
A Division Bench of the High Court allowed the Writ Petition with the direction to the appellants to include his name in the list of candidates waiting for appointment on companypassionate basis.
On January 11, 1994, the respondent made the request for companypassionate appointment but he was informed by the companycerned departmental authorities that his claim for companypassionate appointment would be companysidered only after the settlement of the rival claims for payment of the death cum terminal dues of K. Janaki.
On September 21, 1993, the respondent made an application for payment of her death cum terminal dues.
The respondent challenged the decision of the Circle Selection Committee before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench in O.A. No.610/1998.
Against the order passed by the Tribunal, the respondent went to the Madras High Court in Writ Petition No.12225/1998.
The wife of the respondent K. Janaki died on September 1, 1993, while giving birth to their second child.
By the judgment and order companying under appeal, the High Court directed the appellants to include the name of the respondent in the list of candidates waiting for appointment under the scheme of companypassionate appointments.
A rival claim was raised by the mother of the deceased but the respondent was able to obtain the succession certificate and on that basis he got payment of a sum of Rs.71,000/ as death cum retirement gratuity of his deceased wife, in addition to a sum of Rs.2,998/ per month as family pension.
At that time she was working as a Senior Accountant in the Office of the Directorate of Postal Accounts, Madras.
Aftab Alam, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Madras High Court.
The Tribunal dismissed the O.A. by order dated July 16, 1998.
His case was finally companysidered by the Circle Selection Committee and he was informed by letter dated February 26, 1998, that he was number found entitled to appointment on companypassionate grounds because he was number companysidered to be in indigent circumstances.
