Disposed

Union of India, v. Sri Shaik Akbar Hussain

Andhra Pradesh HC6 Mar 2020WP/12591/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-paragraph order disposes of a writ petition challenging a Central Administrative Tribunal order regarding compassionate engagement for a deceased Gramin Dak Sevak. The Bench directed the Department of Posts to reconsider the respondent's case following a review of government schemes and new instructions allowing reopenings of previously rejected cases.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to reconsider the respondent's case as per new Department of Posts instructions and Tribunal observations.

Union of India, Vs Sri Shaik Akbar… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2020)

¶1

¶2

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.V.SESHA SAI

¶3

AND

¶4

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO

¶5

WRIT PETITION No.12591 of 2019

¶6

ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice A.V. Sesha Sai)

¶7

Order, dated 29.08.2018 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench at Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to, as ‘the Tribunal’) in O.A.No.1140 of 2016, is under challenge in the present Writ Petition.

¶8

When the matter is taken up, Proceedings No.17-01/2017-GDS, dated 05.03.2020 of Dr.Vincent Barla, Director (GDS/PCC), GDS Section, Department of Posts, Ministry of Communications, Government of India, has been placed on record by Sri B.Krishna Mohan, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India.

¶9

Instructions in the above said proceedings read as under:

¶10

“I am directed to refer the instructions issued vide Department of Posts OM No.17-1/2017-GDS, dated 30.05.2017 and dated 18.12.2019 regarding review of the Scheme for engagement of a dependent of deceased Gramin Dak Sevak on compassionate ground.

¶11

In this context, the Competent Authority has again reviewed the instructions on the Scheme keeping in view of numbers of Court cases on compassionate engagement as well as individual representations and approved to repeal the sentence “the cases which have already been settled will not be reopened” (Para 3 of Directorate OM of even number, dated 30.05.2017 refers) as a one-time measure in cases which

¶12

¶13

were earlier rejected by the Committee on Compassionate Engagement (CCE) between the period year 2005 and May 2017.

¶14

This Review as a one-time measure is to be concluded by the prescribed CCE within a period of four months from the date of receipt of this OM. The CCE while examining these Compassionate Engagement cases will adhere to the instructions issued vide this Directorate’s OM No.17-1/2017GDS, dated 30.05.2017 and dated 18.12.2019 in true spirit.

¶15

I am therefore, directed by the Competent Authority to request you to comply with the orders and submit an action taken report.”

¶16

Having regard to the above instructions, the Writ Petition is disposed of, directing the petitioners to reconsider the case of the respondent herein/applicant in terms of the said proceedings and pass appropriate orders within the time frame as per the said proceedings and as per the observations made in the order passed by the Tribunal which is impugned in the present Writ Petition.

¶17

There shall be no order as to costs of the Writ Petition.

¶18

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any in the Writ Petition, shall stand closed.

¶19

__________________ A.V.SESHA SAI, J

¶20

_________________________ R.RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

¶21

06.03.2020 MP

Union of India, v. Sri Shaik Akbar Hussain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India, v. Sri Shaik Akbar Hussain

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

B Sujith Kumar Vs the Income Tax Officer

B.Gopala Bhagya Lakshmi Vs The Commissioner and Director of Intermediate

M/s.Meghraj Moolchand and Sons Vs The Commisssioner of Income Tax-I

Union of India, Vs Sri Y.Pavan

S.T.a.T., Hyd Vs M/S. Veerabhadra Iron Foundry

Union of India, Vs Sri. S.v.H.S.Naga Bhushanam