Disposed

Jai Prakash v. Union of India and Ors.

Himachal Pradesh HC12 Sept 2023CWP/3566/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner sought compassionate appointment following his father's death. After repeated rejections, this court disposed of the writ petition by allowing a fresh representation and directing the authority to consider it within two weeks and decide with reasons within three weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to make fresh representation within two weeks; respondents to consider and pass reasoned order within three weeks.

Jai Prakash Vs Union of India and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Himachal Pradesh HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA

¶2

CWP No.3566 of 2022

¶3

Decided on: 12^th September, 2023

¶4

_________________________________________________________________ Jai Prakash ....Petitioner Versus Union of India & Ors. …Respondents ________________________________________________________________ Coram_ Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua

¶5

1 Whether approved for reporting?

¶6

_________________________ For the petitioner:	________________________________________ Mr. Surender Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondents:	Mr. Nand Lal Thakur, Sr. Panel Counsel.

¶7

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge

¶8

The respondents have rejected the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds. Feeling aggrieved, he has preferred the instant writ petition.

¶9

2. Petitioner’s father, late Sh. Baldev Prasad served as Mate (Mason) in Military Engineer Services. He died in harness on 03.12.2010. On 31.01.2012, the petitioner preferred an application, seeking employment on

¶10

compassionate grounds.

¶11

1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes

¶12

¶13

2(i) The respondents considered petitioner’s

¶14

application for the first time as per DOP&T guidelines on the Compassionate Appointment Scheme dated 16.01.2013. The consideration was for his appointment during the year 201213. Vide order dated 13.03.2014, (Annexure P-2), petitioner’s case was rejected on the ground that during the years 201213, the appointment could not be given to him due to nonavailability of sufficient vacancies and he being low in merit.

¶15

2(ii). Petitioner’s case was considered second time for

¶16

the year 2013-14 under the DOP&T guidelines on the Compassionate Appointment Scheme dated 16.01.2013. It was rejected once again vide order dated 19.09.2016 (Annexure P-4) on the same grounds.

¶17

2(iii) The respondents considered petitioner’s application the third time for the year 2014-15 and turned it down on 31.05.2018 (Annexure P-6) for the repeated reason viz non-availability of vacancies and his being low in merit. While rejecting the case of the petitioner third time, the respondents, inter-alia, conveyed to the petitioner as under: -

¶18

“ 7. It is further intimated that your application dated 31.01.2012 will not be considered in future for subject employment. In case you have still dire need of employment under compassionate ground, fresh

¶19

¶20

application with requisite details (latest) shall be submitted the formation from where Govt. employee has served last.”

¶21

3. In view of liberty given by the respondents to the petitioner in para-7 of order dated 31.05.2018, the petitioner applied once again for compassionate employment vide Annexure P-7 dated 15.01.2022. This application of the petitioner was turned down by the respondents on 17.02.2022 (Annexure P-9). Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred the instant writ petition seeking following

¶22

substantive reliefs: -

¶23

“(i) That the impugned Annexures P2, P4, P6 and P9, issued by respondent No.4 whereby the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds has been rejected, may kindly be quashed and set aside.

¶24

(ii) That the respondents may kindly be directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds and to offer him appointment against any Class-IV post, within a period of one month.”

¶25

4. Heard learned counsel on both sides.

¶26

5. The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that respondents had rejected petitioner’s application on 17.02.2022 vide a non-speaking order is borne out from the impugned order itself. No reasons whatsoever

¶27

¶28

have been indicated in the rejection letter dated 17.02.2022 save and except that petitioner’s case has been rejected three times earlier. No other ground can be discerned from the aforesaid communication, whereas, the fact is that while rejecting the case of the petitioner on 31.05.2018, the respondents had themselves given liberty and an opportunity to the petitioner that in case he was in dire need of employment under compassionate grounds, fresh application with requisite details (latest) should be submitted by him to the formation where his father had last served. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the respondents will be willing to consider the case of the petitioner for employment on compassionate grounds, afresh in case he furnishes a fresh representation. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner would submit his representation afresh.

¶29

In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of by permitting the petitioner to make a fresh representation to the respondents/competent authority for his employment on compassionate grounds within two weeks from today, which shall be considered and decided by the respondents

¶30

¶31

/competent authority by passing a reasoned order, in accordance with law, within a period of three weeks thereafter. A copy of the order be also communicated to the petitioner.

¶32

The writ petition stands disposed in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if

¶33

any, also stand disposed of.

¶34

Jyotsna Rewal Dua Judge

¶35

September 12, 2023 R.Atal

Jai Prakash v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jai Prakash v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kahan Chand Vs State of Hp and Another

Tarsem Raj and Others Vs State of Hp and Others

Rajinder Kumar Vs the Hrtc and Others

Munish Kumar Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Ram Lal Vs State of Hp and Ors.

Janki Devi Vs the State of Hp and Others