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
16 paragraphs · 278 wordsJITENDRA CHAUHAN, J.
This writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for the issuance of a writ, in the nature of certiorari quashing the
impugned order dated 10.08.2017 passed by respondent No.2 (Annexure P-11) and for directing the respondents to consider the claim of the
petitioner for compassionate appointment in the light of Government Notification dated 21.11.2002 (Annexure P-12) and instructions dated
18.07.2005 (Annexure P-13)
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that at this stage he would be satisfied, if a direction is issued to respondent No.2- Chief Engineer,
Department of Irrigation, Punjab, Sector- 18, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh to consider and decide the representation dated 22.09.2017 (Annexure P-
16) in the light of notification dated 21.11.2002 and instructions dated 18.07.2005 (Annexures P-12 and P-13 respectively).
Heard.
In view of the above, without adverting to the merits of the case, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2-Chief
Engineer, Department of Irrigation, Punjab, Sector- 18, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh to consider and decide the representation dated 22.09.2017
(Annexure P-16) in the light of notification dated 21.11.2002 and instructions dated 18.07.2005 (Annexures P-12 and P-13 respectively) within six
weeks from the receipt of the certified copy of the order. In case, on consideration, the competent authority reaches to the conclusion that the
benefit claimed by the petitioner is admissible to him, in such eventuality, the consequential relief be allowed to him, within a period of six weeks
thereafter. However, in case the competent authority feels that the relief claimed by the petitioner is not admissible to him or made out, in that case,
a speaking order be passed in the matter.