Single judge order allowing a writ petition where the High Court rejected the impugned order refusing compassionate appointment for not being reasoned and not complying with policy.
The order dated 10.12.2011 rejecting compassionate appointment was quashed; case remitted to pass a reasoned order within four months.
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.
THE HONBLE’ HIGH COURTOFCHHATTISG ARH AT BILASPUR W. P. (S) No. I«V /20 12 ‘
PETITIONERM
%%./
V
a&&‘¢§$\§\g’x
§w$, ..
“k
RESPONDENTS l.
Ku. Shikha Shriwas,
D/o. Late Shri Dev Prasad Shriwas, Aged about 32 years, R/o. Bhartiya Nagar, near Income Tax Office,BilaspurDistt. Bilaspur (C.G.)
VERSUS
Union of India
Through: Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Coal, Shastri Bhawan, NewDelhi, (India)110001
‘
Chairman—Cum‘Managing
Director South Eastern Coalfield Limited, P.O.Box No. 16, Sipat Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) General Manager (Mines), Pali Birsinghpur, Sub Area, PostBirsingpur Palit Distt. Umariya (M.P.)
Personnel Manager,
South Eastern CoalfieldsLimited, Pali Group, Office of General '(Mines), Manager Sub-Area Pali, Birsinghpur, Pali, Distt. Umariya (M.P.),
Director (Personnel)
South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Sipat Road, Bilaspur (C.G.)
C2)
w
WRITPETITIONUNDERARTICLE226OFTHE TIOIIOFINDIA CONSTITU
00%
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
W.P.(S) No. 188 of2012
PETITIONER
: Ku. Shikha Shriwas
VERSUS
RESPONDENTS Union of India and others
(WR!TPETITIONUNDERARTICLE226OFTHE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA)
(SB: Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Agarwal. J.)
Present: Ms. Naushina Afrin Ali, Counsel for the petitioner. Shri Abhisek Sinha with Shri Ghanshyam Patel, Advocate for the respondents.
ORAL ORDER
(Passedon03.04.2014)
order/communication impugned dated 10.12.2011. Hence this petition.
The main grievance of the petitioner is that the respondents have not passed the order in accordance with the ruies/reguiations/policies/agreement prevailing in the respondent's department at that time for grant of compassionate appointment and on the contrary the order has been passed even without assigning any reason.
K On the other hand, Shri Ghanshyam Patel learned Counsel appearing for the respondents suppotted the order impugned.
l have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the paper book.
The operative partoftheorder/communication reads as under :-
”WWWWWW woéammaoq‘og‘tmwm M$wwmm$m WWW~WWWQJIH§m W gm m Wilma W WWWImwwuéwaowo Wm$wmsssmm 11.2011 QH' atlsat ea $ rm W W/ato/Wo/m/u/ww W 1%; m 26.11.2011 $ ass was W w s WWW#%W§WW Wwé W WWW attiErtr W$mmwmwwn€f § |u
/
a5
For the reasons mentioned above, the petition is allowed, the order impugned dated 10.12.2011 (Annexure P/1) is q“tlashediThematter is remitted back to the respondent No.5 to pass reasoned order afresh after considering the petitioner'sapplicationinaccordancewithlawasearlyas possible preferablywithina periodoffourmonthsfromthe date of receipt of copy of this order.
Sd/-
N. K. Agarwal
Judge
balram
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the order rejecting compassionate appointment was sustainable in law for not considering facts in light of policies at the relevant time.
Whether an order not based on facts and current policies is a speaking order.
Whether the matter should be remitted for a reasoned order.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ku. Shikha Shriwas
Union of India
South Eastern Coalfields Limited
N.K. Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
