Vikas Kaushik vs Union Of India & Others

Pratima K Gupta, Member (J)

Shri Babu Nandan Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for the respondents, are present.

The present original application has been filed by the applicant seeking following reliefs:

“1. Directing to the respondent no. 2 to decide the representation dated 25.09.2021 filed by the applicant which is pending before the respondent no. 2, within stipulated period, which may be fixed by this Hon’ble Court.

Issue a writ order or direction in the appropriate nature which this Hon’ble Tribunal deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

Award cost of the application to the applicant.”

The brief facts leading to this O.A. are that the father of the applicant died on 12.10.2015. The applicant’s mother immediately preferred a representation dated 29.01.2017 before the respondents seeking compassionate appointment of her son under dying-in-harness rules. The claim for the compassionate appointment of the applicant was considered by the committee constituted for considering the cases of compassionate appointment and upon consideration, it was rejected as it was not found feasible to appoint the applicant.

The learned counsel for the applicant submits that vide respondents’ order dated 16.09.2021, a total of 86 candidates were appointed as MTS on compassionate grounds and the applicant’s name was not there. Thereafter, the applicant has preferred a reminder / representation dated 25.09.2021 reiterating his prayer but the same has not been decided yet by the respondents.

Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for the respondents appears on advance notice and drawing attention to the impugned order dated 16.09.2021, submits that the case of all the candidates who have applied for appointment under compassionate grounds was duly considered by the committee constituted for considering cases for compassionate appointments and each case was evaluated based on the criteria of selection fixed for this purpose in line with the guidelines of DoPT and accordingly, the merit list of the applicants was prepared. He submits that the applicant’s case was rejected on account of his position in the merit list vis-à-vis the number of posts available for compassionate appointment during the year. The learned counsel for the respondents accordingly prays that the present original application is liable to be dismissed being devoid of merits.

Learned counsel for the respondents also draws attention to letter dated 22.11.2019, which is placed at page 41 of the original application, wherein it has been communicated to the present applicant that his claim for compassionate appointment was placed before the committee constituted by the Competent Authority to consider appointments under compassionate grounds and as per the rules governing the subject matter, his claim was rejected. However, his claim will be placed for reconsideration before such committee again as and when it meets in future.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. In view of the above, it is made clear that the claim of the applicant was duly considered by the competent authority of the respondents and thereafter the same got rejected. Furthermore, it has also been stated in the respondents’ letter dated 22.11.2019 that the applicant’s case shall be reconsidered once the committee for the appointments under compassionate grounds operates again.

In view of the above, this O.A. is disposed of with a direction to the Competent Authority amongst the respondents to re-consider the case of the applicant as and when the Committee for consideration of compassionate appointments meets in future and the outcome of the same shall be communicated to the applicant within a period of two months thereafter.

With the above directions, the Original Application No. 493 of 2022 is disposed of.

There shall be no order as to costs.