Sachin & Others vs Union Of India & Others

Pratima K. Gupta, Member J

Shri Jitendra Nayak, ld. counsel for the applicants and Shri M.P. Mishra, ld. counsel for the respondents are present.

The applicants, in the present O.A., have sought the following relief(s): -

“i. To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 31.07.2015 & 18.08.2015 (Annexure-A-1 & Annexure-A-2) passed by the respondent no. 3 and 4.

ii. to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the claim of the applicants and accordingly grant him the appointment on compassionate basis on any suitable post.

iii. Issue another writ, order or direction in favour of the applicants as deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

iv. Award the cost of application in favour of the applicants.”

Brief facts of the case are that the father of applicant No.1 (husband of applicant No. 2), who was Postman in the respondents’ department, died on 13.02.2011. The applicant No. 1 had applied for compassionate appointment on 28.06.2011, however, the said application was rejected by the respondents on 31.07.2015 by a reasoned and speaking order which is impugned by the applicants in the present O.A. The said impugned order, which is annexed as annexure A-1, stipulates that the case of the applicant No. 1 was duly considered by the respondents, however, since he could get only ‘52’ relative points hence, he could not be considered for appointment on compassionate on account of limited available posts.

Ld. counsel for the respondents has filed the counter affidavit and vehemently opposes the O.A. He submits that the case of the applicant No. 1 was duly considered by the respondents as per the extent instructions and was rejected by the respondents in accordance with rules. He further submits that the applicant No. 1 was not granted the compassionate appointment as he could not secure the sufficient marks in comparison to his counter parts.

At this stage, ld. counsel for the applicants submits that the applicants would be satisfied if a direction is given to the respondents to consider the case of applicant No. 1 for compassionate appointment once again by passing a reasoned and speaking order.

In view of the limited prayer made by the applicants’ counsel, this Tribunal is of the view that no purpose would be served in keeping pending this O.A. as the applicant No. 1 is confining his relief up to considering of his case once again for compassionate appointment by passing a reasoned and speaking order. Accordingly, the O.A. is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to place the case of the applicant No. 1 before the committee constituted for considering the cases of compassionate appointment in future, as and when the said committee meets. The outcome of the same shall be communicated to the applicants forthwith.

No order as to cost.