The scheme further lays down that the total income of the family from all sources including terminal benefits after death, excluding P.F., should be taken into companysideration.
Rashmi Gautam, ?
This appeal has been preferred against the impugned judgment and order dated 23.5.2006 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in C.M.W.P. No.28535 of 2006 directing the appellants herein to reconsider application of respondent number1 on companypassionate grounds.
other reliefs admissible on pension Aggrieved, respondent No.1 challenged the order dated 28.1.2004 rejecting his claim, before Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad vide Original Application No.
Aggrieved by the order of the Tribunal, the appellants preferred CMWP No.28535 of 2006 before the High Court which has been dismissed vide impugned judgment.
So far as the post of Group C is companycerned, the scheme provides that in case the family gets more than Rs.3 lakhs, the dependent of the deceased would number be eligible for employment on companypassionate ground.
Hence this appeal.
Respondent No.1 companyld number be offered appointment on the ground that excluding G.P.F. amount, his family had received a sum of Rs.4,40,908/ in addition to family pension of Rs.3,100/ per month granted to Mrs. Rashmi Gautam.
Under the scheme, vacancies companyld be filled up on companypassionate grounds only upto 5 of the cadre strength falling under direct recruitment quota during a year in Group C and D posts.
She was entitled to get the said family pension at least for seven years and thereafter, the family pension would be Rs.1,860/ per month plus ?
1 filed an application for appointment on companypassionate grounds, which came to be rejected by the appellants on 28.1.2004 in view of the prevailing scheme for appointments on companypassionate grounds.
Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that one Anand Kishore Gautam working as Senior Accountant in the office of the Accountant General, Allahabad died on 19.3.2001 in harness, leaving behind two sons aged about 20 and 19 years and a daughter, aged about 17 years and Smt.
his widow.
Respondent No.
728 of 2004, wherein the Tribunal by judgment and order dated 7.12.2005 quashed the order dated 28.1.2004 and directed the appellants herein to reconsider the case of respondent No.1.
