AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
13 paragraphs · 366 wordsPratima K. Gupta, Member J
The undersigned has joined this Bench through video conferencing facility.
By the present O.A., the applicant has sought the following relief(s): -
“(i) To set aside the impugned order/letter dated 02.11.2018 passed by the respondent No. 3 on behalf of respondent No. 2.
(ii) To direct the respondents to appoint the applicant on compassionate grounds, forthwith.
(iii) To issue such other and further orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.
(iv) Award cost of the Original Application.”
The brief facts of the case are that the father of applicant while serving as Senior Trackman died on 11.08.2012. The applicant preferred a representation seeking compassionate appointment on the ground that the married daughter is also entitled for appointment under the compassionate appointment scheme.
Ld. counsel for the respondents draws our attention to the impugned order dated 02.11.2018 whereby it can be seen that the case of applicant was in fact considered by the respondents. Ld. counsel submits that the applicant got married well before the demise of deceased employee and is stated to be living independently with her husband and in laws and the deceased employee had only dependent i.e. his wife. The wife of the deceased employee was in receipt of retiral dues and also has been getting family pension. He further submits that the applicant was not the dependent of deceased employee.
Heard the ld. counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings on record.
After perusal of pleadings, it is clear that the respondents have considered the case of the applicant. It is also seen that the applicant is unable to prove her dependency on his mother and it is also not proved that she has been taking care of her mother after the death of her father. In fact, the impugned order passed by the respondents is a well reasoned and does not require any interference.
In view of the above, there is no merit in the O.A. Accordingly, the O.A. stands dismissed. No order as to cost.
All the pendings MA are disposed of as having become infructuous.
