AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Om Prakash -Vii, Member (J)
I have heard Shri S.P Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri D.S. Shukla, learned counsel for the respondents.
The applicant has filed this O.A. under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 with the following prayers:-
“i) To issue a direction to the respondents to appoint the applicant under Dying in Harness Rules in place of his father namely Late Shri Naubat Singh who died on 08.07.2017 during service period.
ii) To issue a direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to decide the representation dated 31.05.2022 of the applicant.
iii) Any other order or direction which this Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the ends of justice.
iv) Award cost of the application”.
Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant’s father died on 08.07.2017, during service period. Applicant applied for appointment on compassionate ground on 17.05.2018. Respondents issued letter dated 06.03.2019 requiring the requisite documents. It is further argued that applicant submitted entire documents as required by the respondents but again on dated 10.06.2019 respondents sent a letter to the applicant mentioning therein that scheme for appointment under dying in harness rule is kept in abeyance for three years. It is also argued that penurious condition of the family of the applicant still exists. Thus, referring to the fact disclosed in the OA, applicant argued that respondents be directed to appoint the applicant under dying in harness rule on a suitable post.
Learned counsel for the respondents argued that counter is not received in the matter but the said scheme for compassionate appointment has been kept in abeyance for three years vide letter dated 09.04.2019. Referring to the another order issued on 07.03.2022 by the respondents, it was further argued that scheme has been kept in abeyance till further orders vide aforesaid letters. Thus, argued that no appointment could be made in dying in harness rule until and unless ban is lifted.
In rebuttal learned counsel for the applicant argued that O.A. may be disposed at the admission stage itself in the light of the policy decision dated 9.4.2019 and 7.3.2022 issued by the BSNL and a direction may be given to the respondents to reconsider the case of the applicant as and when ban is lifted.
Learned counsel for respondents agrees with the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant.
I have considered the rival submissions of the parties and have gone through the entire record.
After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and as per the admission of respondents and keeping in view the ban created through the letters dated 9.4.2019 and 7.3.2022 regarding keeping the cases of compassionate appointment in abeyance till further orders, I am of the view that present OA could be disposed of on the basis of submission made on behalf of the respondents for considering the candidature as and when ban is lifted.
Accordingly, the O.A. is disposed of at the admission stage itself with a direction to the respondents to reconsider the case of the applicant for appointment on compassionate ground on merit along with other candidates as and when ban is lifted and when next Circle High Power Committee is constituted for the purpose of compassionate appointment. It is also observed that the order must contain the details such as number of vacancies in the year/years in which applicant’s case was considered, names of the candidates who were considered and their relative merit in the selection process. No order as to costs. All pending MAs in the O.A. stands also disposed off.