Allowed

Smt. Uttam Devi v. The Union Of India and Ors.

Patna HC10 Apr 2013CWJC/20129/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court set aside three impugned orders rejecting a widow's claim for compassionate appointment in the CRPF. The court found the lower authority failed to consider the applicable compassionate appointment scheme and directed remand to the Director General for a fresh, reasoned decision within six months.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 25.5.2010, 8.7.2011, and 27.2.2012 set aside; matter remitted to Director General, CRPF for fresh disposal with reasoned order within six months.

Smt. Uttam Devi Vs The Union Of India and Ors. — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20129 of 2012

¶3

With Interlocutory Application No. 7976 of 2012 ====================================================== Smt. Uttam Devi, W/O late Lal Bahadur Rajak, R/O Mohalla- Mehdiganj (Devi Asthan), P.O.- Jhauganj, P.S.- Mahdiganj, District- Patna .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Union Of India 2. The Secretary, Department Of Personal and Training, New Delhi 3. The Secretary, Department Of Home Affairs, New Delhi 4. The Director General, Central Reserve Police Force, Lodhi Road, New Delhi 5. The Deputy Inspector General Police, Central Reserve Police Force, Jharkhand, Ranchi 6. The Commandant-114 Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force, Lidran Camp, Jalandhar, Punjab 7. Deputy Inspector General, Central Reserve Police Force, Group Centre, Mokama Ghat, Patna .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Madhuresh Prasad, Advocate Mr. Abhay Shankar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. N. A. Shamsi, Asstt. S.J. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER

¶4

6 10-04-2013 Heard the parties. 2. The petitioner, an unfortunate widow, has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the respondents for consideration of

¶5

Patna High Court CWJC No.20129 of 2012 (6) dt.10-04-2013

¶6

2 / 6

¶7

her claim for her appointment on compassionate ground in accordance with the scheme of compassionate appointment applicable for the dependents of the deceased personnel of the Central Reserve Police Force ( in short ‘ CRPF’).

¶8

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that one Lal Bahadur Rajak, husband of the petitioner, was working and posted as a washer man, a Group D post, under 114 Battalion, CRPF, and he died in harness on 18.9.2007 leaving behind him the petitioner and four minor children as his heirs and legal representatives. It is further submitted that because of sudden death of the sole bread earner, the petitioner and her four minor children are in penury and destitution, and so they are in immediate need of financial assistance. It is contended that the provisions of scheme of compassionate appointment, brought on record as Annexure-10 to I.A. No. 7976 of 2012, are applicable for the dependents of the personnel of the CRPF, who dies in harness.

¶9

It is the case of the petitioner that in accordance with the scheme of compassionate appointment, the petitioner lodged her claim in the year 2009 for her appointment on compassionate ground because of sudden death of her husband in harness on 18.9.2007.

¶10

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that without considering the provisions of scheme of compassionate appointment, the claim for compassionate appointment of the petitioner was mechanically rejected by an order dated 25.5.2010 ( Annexure-3) issued under the signature of the Commandant, 114 Battalion, CRPF, Lidran Camp, Jalandhar, Punjab. Thereafter, the petitioner was asked by

¶11

Patna High Court CWJC No.20129 of 2012 (6) dt.10-04-2013

¶12

3 / 6

¶13

the competent authority to file a fresh application for her appointment on compassionate ground by letter dated 13.7.2010 (Annexure-4) issued by the respondent Commandant. Accordingly, the petitioner is said to have submitted her claim for compassionate appointment, but the said claim was again rejected by an order dated 8.7.2011(Annexure-7) issued by the respondent Commandant on the ground that she does not have requisite qualification from a recognized Institution. Finally, by communication/order dated 27.2.2012 (Annexure-8), claim for compassionate appointment of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that she does not fulfil the physical standard for appointment on the post of constable.

¶14

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has strenuously argued that in none of the orders/communications, while rejecting the claim of compassionate appointment of the petitioner, scheme for compassionate appointment as contained in Annexure-10 applicable for CRPF personnel has been taken into consideration and on purely mechanical and technical grounds claim for compassionate appointment made on behalf of the petitioner has been arbitrarily and illegally rejected. He has drawn the attention of the Court towards clauses 4,5,6 and 7 of the scheme for compassionate appointment applicable for dependents of CRPF personnel, who dies in harness.

¶15

In compliance of the Court’s order, counter affidavit, supplementary counter affidavit as also reply to the Interlocutory Application filed on behalf of the petitioner, have been filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 4 to 7. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 4 to 7 they have

¶16

Patna High Court CWJC No.20129 of 2012 (6) dt.10-04-2013

¶17

4 / 6

¶18

supported the orders passed by the respondent Commandant on different dates, as indicated above. However, it has no where been stated in the aforesaid counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 4 to 7 that the provisions for compassionate appointment, which has been brought on record as Annexure-10, were strictly applied while considering the claim of the petitioner for her compassionate appointment. By referring to Annexure-C to the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 4 to 7, it has been tried to be shown that relaxation in the case of compassionate appointment can be given only to a certain extent with respect to the height, chest, weight and upper age limit. Therefore, according to the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 4 to 7, despite relaxation given the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment cannot be considered.

¶19

After having heard the parties, and on consideration of the materials available on the record, this Court is of the opinion that entire matter requires reconsideration at the highest level. The respondent Commandant while rejecting claim for compassionate appointment made on behalf of the petitioner by communications/orders dated 25.5.2010 (Annexure-3), 8.7.2011 ( Annexure-7) and again by communication/ order dated 27.2.2012 ( Annexure-8), has not referred to the provisions for compassionate appointment applicable for the CRPF personnel. The grounds for rejection of claim of the petitioner also seem to be inconsistent and contradictory in the aforesaid three orders. If provisions of scheme for compassionate appointment, as has been brought on record as Annexure-10, are applicable for CRPF personnel then this Court is of the opinion that the provisions of

¶20

Patna High Court CWJC No.20129 of 2012 (6) dt.10-04-2013

¶21

5 / 6

¶22

the scheme are required to be applied for the purpose of consideration of claim for compassionate appointment made on behalf of the petitioner. Apparently, in none of the impugned orders/communications the relevant provisions, particularly clauses 4,6 and 7 of the aforesaid scheme, either have been discussed or indicated.

¶23

For the reasons recorded above, the impugned communications/orders dated 25.5.2010 ( Annexure-3), 8.7.2011 (Annexure-7) and 27.2.2012 ( Annexure-8) are hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Director General, Central Reserve Police Force (respondent no.4), who shall take into consideration the entire materials and shall pass a fresh order with respect to the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment by looking into the scheme for compassionate appointment applicable for CRPF. Respondent no.4 shall be obliged to get all the documents/communications from the concerned officials and, thereafter, shall dispose of the claim of the petitioner by a reasoned and speaking order. If on consideration of the materials, respondent no.4 is of the opinion that claim raised on behalf of the petitioner is admissible to her, then he shall further be obliged to issue consequential order for grant of admissible reliefs to the petitioner. However, despite consideration of the materials including the scheme for compassionate appointment, respondent no.4 is not inclined to accept the claim of the petitioner, then he shall dispose of her claim by a reasoned and speaking order.

¶24

Entire exercise must be completed by respondent no.4 within a maximum period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the present order.

¶25

Patna High Court CWJC No.20129 of 2012 (6) dt.10-04-2013

¶26

6 / 6

¶27

The application stands finally disposed of with

¶28

the observations and directions made above.

¶29

Interlocutory application stands disposed of.

¶30

(Birendra Prasad Verma, J)

¶31

Kanth/-

Smt. Uttam Devi v. The Union Of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Uttam Devi v. The 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

Jagat Narayan Prasad Vs the Bihar State Electricity Bo

Kameshwar Singh Vs The Food Corporation Of India and Ors.

Anirudh Kumar Yadav and Ors. Vs The Union Of India and Ors.

Raj Kishore Ram Vs The Union Of India and Ors.

Smt. Lilavati Devi and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Ram Lakhan Prasad Vs The Central Bank Of India and Ors.