Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Opposing the O.A., the respondents have filed a counter reply. It is, inter alia, stated by the respondents that the applicant was not a dependent member of the family of the deceased employee on the date of his death, i.e., 23.6.2007, because he was aged 35 years old and none of the family members was eligible to get family pension and that the applicant was not eligible to be considered for compassionate appointment. It is also stated that there were 21 applications for compassionate appointment including that of the applicant, pending before the respondent-Department. The respondent-Department had devised a grading system on a hundred point scale by taking into account various parameters, such as (i) family pension, (ii) terminal benefits, (iii) monthly income and income from property, (iv)movable/immovable property, (v) number of dependants, (vi) number of unmarried daughters, (vii) number of minor children, and (viii) left over service. The applicant did not come within the third position and hence the Welfare Committee did not recommend his name for appointment on compassionate grounds. The applicants case was rejected after proper application of mind, taking into consideration various factors of the applicants case as well as other applicants. Copies of the agenda and record of discussion of the meeting of the Welfare Committee when met on 16.4.2010 and 25.8.2010 are filed as Annexure R/1 collectively.