Disposed

MD Ainul Ali v. Union of India through Its Secretary Ministry of Human Resources Development Department

Jharkhand HC2 Jul 2019WPC/2289/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court treated the writ petition as a representation regarding compassionate appointments. It directed the respondents to consider the petitioners' cases, provide an opportunity of hearing, and pass a reasoned order within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

Petition treated as representation. Respondents directed to hear and pass reasoned order within eight weeks; extension within three weeks if benefits found due.

MD Ainul Ali Vs Union of India through Its… — Education and Admissions | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(S).No. 2289 of 2018

¶3

¶4

Md. Ainul Ali

¶5

Pranab Halder

¶6

Kundan Kumar

¶7

Radhika Hansda

¶8

Sanoj Kumar Sharma

¶9

Amar Ram

¶10

Abhishek Kumar

¶11

… … Petitioners

¶12

Versus -

¶13

Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of India, New Delhi

¶14

The Director, Indian Institute of Technology, Indian Institute of Mines, Dhanbad.

¶15

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S.N.PATHAK

¶16

For the Petitioners : Mr. Birendra Kumar, Advocate Mr. Vishwanath Roy, Advocate

¶17

For the Respondents : JC to ASGI

¶18

¶19

08/ 02.07.2019 In the instant writ petition, petitioners have prayed for a direction upon the respondents, particularly respondent No. 2, to appoint the present petitioners on Group-C posts, in light of ‘Scheme for compassionate appointment’ dated 16.01.2013 and 09.10.1998, since they have been continuously working as a semi-skilled workers or daily rated mazdoors for a decade and a large number of sanctioned and vacant posts under Group-C and D categories are lying vacant.

¶20

At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that though the representations of the petitioners are pending, the respondents have neither paid any heed to it nor any order has been passed on their pending representations. Learned counsel further submits that suffice it would be if the present writ petition is treated as a representation of the petitioners and a direction be given to the respondents-authorities to pass a reasoned order on their pending representations.

¶21

Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to the said prayer.

¶22

¶23

In view of the fair submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, let this writ petition be treated as representation of the petitioners and further, the petitioners are free to annex any other documents upon which they are relying, other than what has been annexed in the present writ petition, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and after receiving the same alongwith the copy of the present writ petition, the respondents are directed to consider the cases of the petitioners after providing ample opportunity of hearing to them and thereafter, pass a reasoned order, in accordance with law, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. It goes without saying that if the petitioners are found entitled for the benefits, as prayed for, the same may be extended to them within a further period of three weeks.

¶24

With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands

¶25

disposed of.

¶26

kunal/-

MD Ainul Ali v. Union of India through Its Secretary Ministry of Human Resources Development Department

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

MD Ainul Ali v. Union of India through Its Secretary Ministry of Human Resources Development Department

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

Ram Bilash Prasad Vs Jharkhand Mineral Area Development Authority through Its Chairman Cum Managing Director

Sabita Banerjee Vs the State of Jharkhand

Sangita Kacchap Vs the State of Jharkhand through Its Secretary Human Resources Development Department

Sanjay Yadav Vs Health

Smt Sheela Devi Vs Social Welfare Women And Child Development Dept

Khajo Miyan Vs Central Coalfields Ltd. Through General Manager Mp And R And Ors.