Dismissed

Hari Om Sharan v. The Union Of India and Ors.

Patna HC21 Jun 2016CWJC/2451/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the Central Administrative Tribunal's order declining a claim for compassionate appointment. The High Court found no merit in the argument that the petitioner should have been considered under unreserved criteria instead of revised ones, dismissing the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the Tribunal's order was dismissed.

Hari Om Sharan Vs The Union Of India and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2451 of 2016

¶3

=========================================================== Hari Om Sharan, son of Late Jawahar Ram, Resident of Mohalla- Jathiyahi Pokhar, P.O.- Lal Bagh, District- Darbhanga.

¶4

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Union of India through the Chief Post Master General, New Delhi. 2. The Director, Postal Training Centre Darbhanga. 3. The Assistant Director (Admn) Postal Training Central Darbhanga. 4. The Post Master General, Bihar Circle Patna. 5. The Circle Relation Committee Postal Training Central Darbhanga. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun Kumar Bhagat, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Mr. S.D Sanjay, Addl. Solicitor General Mr. Ram Anurag Singh, C.G.C.

¶7

.... .... Respondent/s

¶8

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

¶9

and

¶10

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA) Date: 21-06-2016

¶11

The order dated 11.04.2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal’) is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition. By the aforesaid order, an Original Application filed by the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment remained unsuccessful.

¶12

Sri Jawahar Ram, father of the petitioner was working as a Sweeper in Postal Training Centre, Darbhanga. He died in harness on 23.03.2002. The petitioner made an application for seeking appointment on compassionate ground in April, 2004. Since no decision was taken, the petitioner filed an Original Application before

¶13

Patna High Court CWJC No.2451 of 2016 dt.21-06-2016

¶14

2/3

¶15

the Tribunal which was allowed on 27.10.2009 with a direction to the respondents to give a fresh consideration to the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. It is in pursuance of such direction, the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was declined on 03.01.2011. It is the said order which was challenged before the Tribunal.

¶16

The Tribunal has found that the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground for the vacancy of the year 2009 was considered in the meetings of the Committee held on 15.09.2010, 18.10.2010 and 19.10.2010, wherein 58 cases including that of the petitioner was considered. The petitioner earned 54 points as against deserving cases which earned more than 70 points.

¶17

The argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the claim of the petitioner was considered after the revised criteria was circulated on 20.01.2010 whereas his claim was required to be considered in terms of unreserved criteria.

¶18

We do not find any merit in the said argument. The petitioner could not be appointed till 2010, may be for the reason that there were not enough vacancies or that the comparative hardship of the petitioner and the other candidates were such, which did not make the petitioner as eligible for appointment. The circular dated 20.01.2010 is a circular dealing with procedure for appointment. The

¶19

Patna High Court CWJC No.2451 of 2016 dt.21-06-2016

¶20

3/3

¶21

procedure for appointment is applicable to all pending cases including the cases pending before issuance of the said circular. Since, in pursuance of the guideline framed, the petitioner could not secure the minimum cut off mark for appointment, therefore, it cannot be said that such circular will not be applicable to the petitioner.

¶22

We do not find any error in the order passed by the Tribunal which may warrant interference in the present writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶23

(Hemant Gupta, J)

¶24

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)

¶25

Sujit/P.Kumar

¶26

Hari Om Sharan v. The Union Of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Om Sharan 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

Razia Begum Vs The State Of Bihar Through Director General Of Police Bihar, Patna and Ors.

Usha Anand Vs The State Of Bihar Through Chief Secretary, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna and Ors.

Subodh Kumar Singh Vs The Managing Director North Power Distribution Company Ltd. Bailey Road, Patna and Ors.

Amrawati Devi Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Shatrughan Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar Through The Secretary, Department Of Home, Government Of Bihar, Patna and Ors.

Dinesh Prasad Vs The Union Of India Through The Secretary Rural Development New Delhi and Ors.