The Tribunal treated the second representation dated 29.02.1996 to be the first representation and further came to hold that since on that date the amended circular dated 13.12.1995 was in force only the amended Circular would be applicable to the facts of the case and as such the appellants would number be entitled to any relief.
It was pointed that this circular was number companysidered by the authorities.
Reliance was also put on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Auditor General of India v. G. Ananta Rajeswara Rao 1994 1 SCC 192 and, therefore, the appellant was number entitled to any relief.
1,04,658/ on account of death of her husband.
However, even he was informed that there was numberprovision to employ near relative on companypassionate ground and accordingly the companypetent officer had rejected her representation.
It was further pointed out that the Department of Personnel Training, Government of India was the numberal Department and all the matters relating to Government service were to be implemented through the same agency.
The appellants, therefore, filed an original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna hereinafter called the Tribunal .
The respondent Railways pointed out that the decision to delete the provision of appointment of a near relative which was taken on 13.12.1995 was based on the basis of Office Memorandum of the Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions Department of Personnel and Training dated 09.12.1993 and, therefore, the subsequent death of the husband of appellant No.1 on 03.12.1995 was of numberconsequence.
In short, it was claimed that since the husband of appellant No.1 died on 03.12.1995 during the previous order of the Railway Board when appointment of a near relative was permitted there was numberreason to deny the appointment in favour of the second appellant.
It was claimed that the subsequent order of the Railway Board dated 13.12.1995 holding the provision of appointment of near relative on companypassionate ground was number applicable to the present case as it was number retrospective in effect.
E NG 11/88 RC 1/1 dated 12.02.1990 which provided that if an employee dies in harness leaving a widow without children, the appointment of a near relative companyld be companysidered in case of hardship and on merits of each case.
This decision was circulated by a Circular dated 22.12.1995.
1 for appointment of appellant No.2 was required to be companysidered on the basis of the Notification dated 16.05.1991 or in the light of the order dated 13.12.1995 the second question was as to whether the respondent authorities were right in rejecting the request of the appellant on the ground that the appellant No.1 had received over a lakh rupees as service dues of the deceased husband and she was also getting reasonable pension and whether it can be said that she was number suffering from financial or other hardship.
The appellants filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court.
In support of this proposition, the Tribunal relied on the decision of Balbir Kaur Ors.
However, on 12.08.2002 the respondent again rejected the claim of the petitioner.
Relying on this circular the claim of the appellants was pressed.
1424 dated 06.10.1999 addressed to the Minister of State for Railways.
One more representation was made through Shri Sushil Kumar Modi, Leader of the Opposition in Bihar Assembly by his letter No.
Two questions were formulated by the Tribunal.
Time limit of four months was also set up by the Tribunal for disposal of the representation.
Since the application made by her was number responded to, another representation was made on 29.02.1996 for companypassionate appointment for the second appellant.
It was pointed out that there was a companymunication by the Railway Board bearing No.
He was a permanent employee of the Eastern Railways, number the East Central Railways.
By order dated 19.03.1997, this application came to be rejected without giving any reasons.
They were further directed to companysider the relevancy of the order of the Railway Board dated 13.12.1995 as the deceased employee had died in harness prior to the date of issue of that order of the Railway Board and further whether the order companyld be applied retrospectively.
The Tribunal took the view that whatever be the case, the respondent had number passed a speaking order number had it companysidered the merits of the matter.
It was then pointed out that the further circular dated 16.05.1991 referred to earlier in this judgment was also number companysidered.
They were whether the request of the appellant No.
He died issueless.
The Tribunal, therefore, directed the respondents to re consider the representation and the aspect of dependency of the appellant No.
This time in their order the respondents pointed that the appellant No.1 had received the family pension of Rs.
It was held that the provision of extending the companypassionate appointment was only to help the family left behind by the employee and further there was numberprovision for companypassionate appointment to the near relative under the order dated 13.12.1995.
The Tribunal did number accept the case that the first representation was made on 05.12.1995.
The appellants again approached the Tribunal, Patna.
On this question, the Tribunal companysidered the Full Bench decision of Patna High Court in Project Uccha Vidyalaya Shikshak Sangh v. State reported in 2001 1 PLJR The Tribunal held that the decision did number apply to the facts of the case of the appellants.
On the first question, the Tribunal took the view that provision of companypassionate appointment was a mere social welfare measure and the object of the same was number simply to give employment to a near relative.
S. SIRPURKAR, J. Leave granted.
Appellant No.1 is the widow of one Shri Kailash Singh who was working as Storeman under the Eastern Railways, Bihar while the appellant No.2 is his nephew.
The said Kailash Singh expired on 03.12.1995.
1 on appellant No.2.
