The Patna High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging the Central Administrative Tribunal's order denying the petitioner appointment on compassionate ground. The court found no acute financial distress given the adult sons and held no interference was warranted.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13277 of 2014
| =========================================================== Shankar Prasad, S/o Late Chhanu Ram, R/o Mohalla Jakki Sahid, P.O. Sasaram, P.S. Sasaram, Dist. Rohtas. .... .... Petitioner Versus |
|---|
| 1. The Union of India through the Railway Board, New Delhi. 2. Senior Divisional Karmik Officer, Eastern Central Railway, Mugalsarai. 3. Abar Sqchiv Lok Shikayat Directorate, Ministerial Secretariat, 2nd Floor, Sardar Patel Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi - 110001. 4. General Manager (General), Eastern Central Railway, Hajipur, Bihar, 5. Chief Karmik Officer, Eastern Central Railway, Hajipur, Bihar. .... .... Respondents =========================================================== |
| Appearance : |
| For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Prasad, Advocate Mr. Rewti Kant Raman, Advocate |
| For the Respondent Nos.1, 2, 4 & 5 : Mr. Ashok Kumar Keshari, Sr. S.C Mr. Satyeshwar Prasad, Advocate |
| For the State : Mr. R. R. K. Pandey, S.C.-29 Mr. Nagendra Sharma, A.C. to S.C.-29 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA And |
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA)
Date: 19-04-2016
The order dated 16th of April, 2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) is subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. The Tribunal vide the order impugned has not entertained the Original Application filed by the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground.
Patna High Court CWJC No.13277 of 2014 dt.19-04-2016
2/4
brother of the petitioner, namely Sri Narain Ram, sought appointment on compassionate ground vide the request dated 21st July, 2003, but his claim for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected on 31st of October, 2005. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 23rd of December, 2010 which was rejected vide communication dated 13th of December, 2013, inter alia on the ground that the petitioner has sought appointment on compassionate ground after more than two years of attaining majority as he is born on 10th of December, 1986.
Patna High Court CWJC No.13277 of 2014 dt.19-04-2016
3/4
the year 2010, i.e. almost three years after the so called rejection of the request of the elder brother of the petitioner. The petitioner is born on 10th of December, 1986 and, thus, attained the age of majority in the year 2004, but he applied for appointment in the year 2010, i.e. more than five years after attaining the age of majority. Still further, the learned Tribunal has found that both the brothers are the only legal heirs of the deceased and, thus, they being adults can take care of themselves and it is not a case of a family which is in acute financial distress.
(Hemant Gupta, J.)
(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)
Sunil/-
Patna High Court CWJC No.13277 of 2014 dt.19-04-2016
4/4
AFR/NAFR N. A. F. R
CAV DATE N. A.
Uploading Date
Transmission
Date
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Central Administrative Tribunal's order dismissing the petitioner's original application for appointment on compassionate ground.
Whether the petitioner and his brother are in acute financial distress as required by the law for compassionate appointment.
Shankar Prasad
Union of India through the Railway Board
Hemant Gupta
Ahsanuddin Amanullah
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
