One Srinivasa Rao working as Technician II/SSE/PSI/SPE expired on 19.06.2005 due to heart attack. He was unmarried at the time of his death and had adopted his brother's daughter who was 7 years old through the adoption deed dated 01.06.2005. After his demise, all the terminal benefits were settled to her including the family pension vide PPO.No.0602236485, dated 27.12.2006. On 21.10.2011, a representation was made on her behalf for compassionate appointment which was rejected vide order dated 05.03.2013 citing the reason "no dependency existing". She was only 17 years old then. She approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench in OA.No.333 of 2015 which directed the employer/respondent to make an objective assessment as per the prescribed procedure and pass a speaking order. The respondents rejected the claim once more after an objective assessment vide order dated 20.06.2016. Aggrieved over this order, OA/310/01332/2016 was filed before Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench while dismissing this Original Application, opined that the reasoning of the respondents suffered no infirmity. According to the respondents, the adoption took place only days before the demise of Srinivasa Rao and that he was a bachelor till then with no dependants. The terminal benefits were no doubt, settled to the adopted daughter, the petitioner, only because of the guardianship order passed by the learned District Judge, Ongole, in GWOP.No.5 of 2006 filed by her biological father. Presently, the petitioner is living with her biological parents and as such no dependency existed. Thus, the Original Application was dismissed. The petitioner appealed for review of this order in RA/310/00018/2017 which again was dismissed. The Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench did not find any merit in the appeal. Hence, this Writ Petition challenging both the orders.
