This order dismisses a writ petition challenging a Tribunal's decision to direct consideration for compassionate appointment to the respondent subject to her brother's no-objection. The Court held that the applicant's mother's remarriage is not a ground to deny consideration for the benefit.
Petition and connected matters dismissed.
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.
$~69
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR ..... Petitioners Through: Mr. Shailender Saini, Advocate
versus
KM. DIVYA GOSWAMI ..... Respondent Through:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDER SHEKHAR O R D E R % 07.12.2016
There is a difference between the typed true copy of the impugned order dated 31.5.2016 and the photocopy of the same order.
In these circumstances, we would go by the photocopy of the impugned order dated 31.5.2016, whereby OA Nos.1434/2013 and 4339/2013 have been disposed of. The operative portion of the impugned order dated 31.5.2016, as far as photocopy is concerned, reads:-
“8. Taking all the facts into consideration, and particularly bearing in mind that the interest of the children cannot be prejudiced due to any act of omission or commission of their mother, I am of the firm opinion that the applicant is entitled for the compassionate appointment. I, therefore, direct the
respondents to consider the applicant for compassionate appointment in accordance with rules, subject to the condition that the applicant would submit an affidavit of her brother Rajat Goswami to the respondents to the effect that he has no objection to the grant of compassionate appointment to the applicant. The respondents are also directed to release other family benefits due to the applicant and her brother only, since her mother is stated to have got re-married.”
A perusal of the aforesaid direction would show that the Tribunal has only directed consideration of the applicant, i.e., Divya Goswami for compassionate appointment. This is subject to the condition that Divya Goswami’s brother, Rajat Goswami would give no-objection certificate.
The petitioners had contested the OAs on the ground that the mother of Divya Goswami has remarried. However, this contention, in our opinion, cannot be a ground to deny consideration for compassionate appointment. This cannot, in the facts of the case, be a disqualification. The respondent, Divya Goswami, is the daughter of late Bharam Prakash Giri, who was murdered and had died an unnatural death on 29.10.2002. Mother of the respondent, Divya Goswami, in fact, was prosecuted for the murder of Bharam Prakash Giri, but has been acquitted.
We do not find any merit in the present writ petition, for the reason
that the respondent, Divya Goswami, cannot be denied compassionate appointment, for her mother has got remarried. The Tribunal, in our opinion, has not given any specific direction that compassionate appointment should be granted. The case of the respondent is to be considered in accordance
with the scheme, without being influenced by the fact that the mother of Divya Goswami has remarried.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is dismissed. CM Nos.45317-18/2016 are also dismissed.
SANJIV KHANNA, J
CHANDER SHEKHAR, J
DECEMBER 07, 2016 tp
3 issues framed by the court
Whether remarriage of the daughter's mother disqualifies her from compassionate appointment.
Whether the Tribunal erred in directing consideration for applicant subject to brother's no-objection.
Whether the mother's prosecution and acquittal in the respondent's father's murder affect compassionate benefit.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR
KM. DIVYA GOSWAMI
SANJIV KHANNA
CHANDER SHEKHAR
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
