No.5, seeking appointment on compassionate grounds on the demise of the father, the respondents No.2 to 4 issued proceedings dated 31.01.2019, appointing him as a Junior Assistant. Aggrieved by the said order of appointment, the appellant filed the subject writ petition stating inter alia that the respondent No.5 ought not to have been granted appointment on compassionate grounds and that the mother of the parties had colluded with the respondent No.5. Without intimating the appellant and without obtaining his consent, the mother had approached the respondents No.2 to 4 for appointment of the respondent No.5 on compassionate grounds. It has been observed in the impugned order that in terms of the compassionate appointment scheme of the respondents No.2 to 4/ Municipal Corporation, a spouse/dependant family member of the deceased, who expires while in harness, is entitled to be appointed on compassionate grounds. The said scheme is silent as to which member of the family should be given preference. Noting that the appellant/writ petitioner is already married and living separately whereas, the widow of late Dubba Gangaram is living at some other place along with the younger son/the respondent No.5, the court held that it cannot be said that the appointment of the respondent No.5 made on compassionate grounds, is either illegal or in contravention of the scheme.
