High Court dismissed a Writ Petition quashing the Central Administrative Tribunal's order. Court held that since authorities agreed to reconsider the respondent's compassionate employment claim in the next committee meeting, no further judicial direction was required.
None; writ petition disposed of as further inquiry unnecessary.
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 PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.23640 of 2014 Date of Decision: December 11, 2014
Union of India and others .....Petitioners versus
Smt.Gurnam Kaur and another
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH.
Present: Mr.Vikram Bajaj, Advocate, for the petitioners.
-.-
Surya Kant, J. (Oral)
Union of India and the Chief Postmaster General, Punjab Circle etc., assail the order dated 10.05.2013 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, as well as the subsequent order dated 12.09.2014 whereby the Tribunal has dismissed their Review Application against the above-stated order.
The controversy pertains to the consideration of claim of first respondent for her appointment on compassionate ground. The undisputed facts are that the husband of first respondent was working as Mail-Man in Railway Mail Service when he unfortunately died on 08.10.2007 leaving behind his widow and a school going daughter. The first respondent applied for her employment on compassionate ground. She was found eligible but could not make the bench marks as other candidates who secured more
MOHINDER KUMAR 2014.12.23 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
CWP No.23640 of 2014
[2]
points then her were given appointment. Such an exercise was undertaken for three times. Thereafter, the authorities did not consider the claim of first respondent, prompting her to approach the Tribunal.
The Tribunal, vide order dated 10.05.2013 set-aside the decision of the petitioner-authorities in declining further consideration and directed that the claim of respondent No.1 ought to have been considered year-wise. The Review Application was preferred but that has also been dismissed.
The issue raised on behalf of the petitioners essentially pertains to the import of directions issued by the Tribunal. What it appears to us from the order of the Tribunal is that the claim of first respondent need not be closed down only because on certain occasions there were candidates whose mitigating circumstances were stronger than the first respondent and who got higher bench marks as compared to her. In other words, the Tribunal's direction is that as and when a vacancy arises, the claim of respondent No.1 can be considered and compared with other eligible candidates. Such a conclusion was drawn by us vide interlocutory order dated 19.11.2014. In furtherance thereto, learned counsel for the petitioners on the basis of written instructions and an additional affidavit filed by the authorities, fairly states that claim of respondent No.1 would again be re-considered by the Circle Relaxation Committee (C.R.C.) alongwith other eligible candidates in the next meeting which might be held somewhere in the month of February/March, 2015, subject to availability of vacancy.
Since the authorities have now understood the order in its right perspective, there is no necessity to call upon
MOHINDER KUMAR 2014.12.23 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
CWP No.23640 of 2014
[3]
the respondents or to issue any further direction.
The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
[SURYA KANT] JUDGE
December 11, 2014 [RAJ MOHAN SINGH] Mohinder JUDGE
MOHINDER KUMAR 2014.12.23 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
CWP No.23640 of 2014
[4]
CM No.15124 of 2014 in CWP No.23640 of 2014
Union of India and others versus Smt.Gurnam Kaur and another
Present : Mr.Vikram Bajaj, Advocate, for the applicant-petitioners. * * *
For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed subject to all just exceptions and additional affidavit alongwith document (Annexure P-8) is taken on record.
CM stands disposed of.
(SURYA KANT)
JUDGE
December 11, 2014 (RAJ MOHAN SINGH)
Mohinder JUDGE
MOHINDER KUMAR 2014.12.23 15:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether interlocutory directions of the Tribunal require further inquiry or clarification by the High Court.
Whether authorities must reconsider the compassionate appointment claim of the respondent.
Union of India
Chief Postmaster General, Punjab Circle
Smt. Gurnam Kaur
Surya Kant
Raj Mohan Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
