Dismissed

Imrati Devi & Anr. v. Central Administrative Tribunal & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Dec 2014CWP/24485/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged the Tribunal's order denying compassionate appointment to a minor son, arguing urgent need. The Court held there was no case to interfere as the family had other means of sustenance and sought appointment only after the son attained majority, indicating delay.

What did the court decide?

The Civil Writ Petition was dismissed; the Tribunal's order dated 04.05.2011 upholding the denial of compassionate appointment was affirmed.

Imrati Devi & Anr. Vs Central… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.24485 of 2014 Date of Decision: December 01, 2014

¶3

Imrati Devi and another .....Petitioners

¶4

versus

¶5

The Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench and others

¶6

.....Respondents

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH.

¶8

Present: Ms.Balwinder Kaur, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶9

-.-

¶10

Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶11

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶12

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶13

¶14

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

¶15

The petitioners, who are mother and son respectively, impugn the order dated 04.05.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, whereby the claim of petitioner No.2 for appointment on compassionate ground, has been turned down.

¶16

The facts are not in dispute. The husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner No.2, late Ex.Hav.Raghur Chand died on 24.03.1998 while he was on duty. The second petitioner was minor at that time as his date of birth is 15.07.1988. He has elder sisters also. The first petitioner-mother of petitioner No.2, did not seek compassionate appointment for herself or for her daughters. She waited petitioner No.2 to attain majority in the year 2006 and thereafter an application was moved which was finally turned down on 17.05.2010 observing that the case was more than three years old.

¶17

MOHINDER KUMAR 2014.12.09 12:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶18

[2]

¶19

CWP No.24485 of 2014

¶20

The Tribunal has upheld that the action of the authorities observing that it was not a case where compassionate appointment was needed to tide over the sudden crises faced by the family. The Tribunal has further observed that petitioner No.1 was getting family pension of more than Rs.10,000/- and family was also paid the terminal benefits of RS.10.22 lacs. The claim was raised after 12 years of death of the employee.

¶21

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and without going into the question of inordinate delay and laches as the impugned order was passed by the Tribunal on 04.05.2011, we are satisfied that no case to interfere with that order is made out. Had it been a case of urgent need to provide means of sustenance to a family who suddenly lost its sole bread earner, the first petitioner would not have waited petitioner No.2 to attain majority. She could herself seek appointment or could seek job for her one of the elder daughters.

¶22

No case to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal is made out.

¶23

Dismissed.

¶24

December 01, 2014 [RAJ MOHAN SINGH] Mohinder JUDGE

¶25

MOHINDER KUMAR 2014.12.09 12:56 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Imrati Devi & Anr. v. Central Administrative Tribunal & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Imrati Devi & Anr. v. Central Administrative Tribunal & 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

Gram Panchayat Vill Amanipur Vs Additional Deputy Commissioner (D) Cum Collector Panchayat Lands & Ors.

Jaspal Singh Vs Union of India & Ors.

Chandigarh Administration and Anr. Vs Durgesh Sharma and Anr.

Hari Singh & Ors. Vs Director Rural Dev. & Ors.

Food Corporation of India Vs Addl. Director Consolidation of Holding

Surinder Kaur Vs State of Punjab etc.