Disposed

Amanpreet Kaur v. Union of India and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Jan 2013CWP/443/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court granted liberty to the petitioner to submit a detailed representation claiming compassionate appointment for herself. The respondents were directed to consider the representation and pass a speaking order within four months in accordance with the governing policy.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to submit a detailed representation; direction to respondents to consider it and decide within four months. Disposed of.

Amanpreet Kaur Vs Union of India… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

-1-

¶2

CWP No.443 of 2013 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.443 of 2013 (O&M)

¶5

Date of decision: 11.01.2013

Amanpreet Kaur

...... Petitioner

Vs.

Union of India & others

¶10

..... Respondents

¶11

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.

¶12

Present: Mr. Ashok Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J. (Oral)

¶14

The husband of the petitioner who was working on the post of Driver Grade II with Indian Railways died in harness on 09.02.2010. The petitioner initially filed an application for consideration of the claim of her minor son for compassionate appointment. Such application was responded in terms of informing the petitioner that such a claim would be considered only upon her son attaining the age of majority. Thereafter, vide application dated 02.06.2011 (Annexure P-3), the petitioner herself submitted her claim for grant of compassionate appointment and the same was duly forwarded to the Railway Board, New Delhi on 14.09.2011 (Annexure P-4). It is contended that the Railway Board vide communication dated 13.04.2012 (Annexure P-5) had called upon the petitioner to submit an

¶15

-2-

¶16

CWP No.443 of 2013 (O&M)

¶17

affidavit as regards non re-marriage. Counsel contends that even the requisite affidavit as regards non re-marriage as also other relevant documents have already been submitted but till date no final decision has been taken as regards the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. Counsel would even refer to the scheme dated 09.10.1998 for compassionate appointment at annexure P-9 to contend that her claim would be completely covered in terms of the conditions stipulated therein.

¶18

In the light of the facts noticed hereinabove, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition in terms of granting liberty to the petitioner to submit a detailed representation as regards her claim. In the eventuality of any such representation being preferred, the respondents would consider the same and take a final decision strictly in accordance with law and in the light of the relevant policy governing the compassionate appointment by passing a speaking order within a period of four months from the date of submission of the same.

¶19

Disposed of.

¶20

(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE

¶21

January 11, 2013 harjeet

Amanpreet Kaur v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amanpreet Kaur 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

Jaswinder Singh @ Sonu Vs State of Punjab

Harbans Singh Vs State of Punjab etc.

Aman Goyal Vs State of Punjab

Jitender Vs State of Haryana and Another

Mahabir Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Sonia Sharma Vs State of Haryana and Ors.