This court dismissed the writ petition challenging the C.A.T.'s order directing reconsideration of a compassionate appointment claim on a new ground of discrimination, upholding the Tribunal's decision to be a proper exercise of its discretion.
The writ petition was dismissed; the Tribunal's order was not interfered with.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI
CHIEF JUSTICE J.K. MAHESHWARI AND JUSTICE K.SURESH REDDY
WRIT PETITION No.16034 of 2020
(Through Video Conferencing)
The Union of India, rep. by its Director of Accounts (Postal) Department of Posts, at Hyderabad-500001, and others
… Petitioners Versus
G.Phani Raj Kumar, S/o.late Gummineni Mohan Ram, aged about 43 years, unemployee, Gr ‘C’, R/o.H.No.58-2-13, Anjaneya Swamy Temple Street, Santhapet, Ongole-523001 … Respondent
ORAL ORDER
Dt:09.09.2020
Per J.K. Maheshwari, CJ
This writ petition has been filed being aggrieved by the order dated 13.09.2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad in O.A.No.020/0248/2019, directing the respondents therein to reconsider the order of the High Court, which has not been complied with in letter and spirit. It is also observed that the impugned order dated 24.08.2018 is not a reasoned order, complying the directions commensurate to the order of the court. By the impugned order, it is also observed that the said order does not contain the details of all the selected candidates who were granted compassionate appointment; therefore, the order impugned was found at fault and hence quashed with a direction of reconsideration.
2
HCJ & KSR,J W.P.No.16034 of 2020
When compassionate appointment of the respondent was not made, O.A.No.810 of 2015 was filed, which was decided on 22.02.2015 directing the respondents therein to consider the case of the respondent/applicant and to take final decision. The decision was taken on 28.12.2015 rejecting the claim; however, O.A.No.311 of 2016 was filed again, which was dismissed on 28.10.2016. Being aggrieved by the said order, the applicant came before the High Court by filing W.P.No.5437 of 2017, which was decided by the High Court on 23.04.2018, in which the following directions were issued:
“The writ petition is accordingly allowed setting aside the order passed by the Tribunal holding to the contrary along with the rejection orders. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner-applicant afresh for appointment on compassionate grounds, upon his furnishing an affidavit certifying his present financial condition. The respondents shall thereupon take an informed and reason decision in the matter and communicate the same, citing the details of the comparative analysis, if any, undertaken to evaluate his candidature. The exercise shall be completed expeditiously and in any event, not later than one month from the date of receipt of the affidavit of the petitioner-applicant detailing his financial condition.”
3
HCJ & KSR,J W.P.No.16034 of 2020
(petitioners herein) to reconsider the claim of the applicant (respondent herein) for grant of compassionate appointment, afresh.
As a sequel, all the pending miscellaneous applications shall stand closed.
J.K. MAHESHWARI, CJ K.SURESH REDDY, J
MRR
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Tribunal's order quashing the lower authority's decision and directing reconsideration of compassion appointment, on a ground not taken before, warrants interference by this writ court.
Whether the claim of the respondent should be rejected on a new ground raised in the Tribunal's order which was challenged herein.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The Union of India, rep. by its Director of Accounts (Postal) Department of Posts
G.Phani Raj Kumar
J.K. MAHESHWARI
K. SURESH REDDY
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
