Appeal against dismissal of writ petition for compassionate appointment. Condonation of 29-day delay allowed intra-court appeal dismissed. Court found no illegality in rejection of claim after gap of 22 years and new policy abolishing appointments for medical retirement cases.
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.
����������������������������������������� �����������
�������������������������� !��"�#$ %�&��'(
Date of Decision: 22.02.2019
Naresh Kumar …..Appellant
versus
State of Haryana and others …..Respondents
����')� �������'����+�����,��+����'�����-���������+����� �������'�����+���������������-�������
Present : Dr. Deepak Jindal, Advocate, for the appellant.
,��+����'�����-���������+�����
�'�����%!#.�����"�#$ %
Heard. For the reasons mentioned in the application, delay of
29 days in re(filing the appeal is condoned. Application stands disposed of.
��������� !��"�#$ %�&��'(
This intra(court appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment and order dated 01.11.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant. 2. Petitioner(appellant approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 14.09.2017 passed by respondent No.2(Transport Commissioner, Haryana, rejecting the representation made by him for appointment on compassionate ground in compliance with the policy dated 31.08.1995. A writ of mandamus was also claimed to command the respondents to give him appointment on compassionate ground on the post of Clerk.
RAVINDER SHARMA 2019.03.05 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
LPA No. 415 of 2019 2
Father of the petitioner who was working as driver in the Transport Department, Karnal Depot, was pre(maturely retired from service on 05.12.1997. The appellant(petitioner filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 7815 of 2006 challenging the order dated 16.02.2006 passed by respondent No.2 rejecting the claim of compassionate appointment which was disposed of by a Division Bench vide order dated 09.01.2007 directing the respondents to consider the case in terms of the policy and to give him suitable appointment as per his entitlement. The order was challenged by the State of Haryana before the Hon’ble Apex Court in (SLP (C) No. 8319 of 2007 converted into Civil Appeal No. 2511 of 2007 and the same was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 14.05.2007 directing that the last part of the order of the High Court whereby a direction was issued to give appointment as per entitlement be deleted and the respondents to decide the application for appointment on compassionate ground. In compliance of the aforesaid order of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the claim of the appellant(petitioner was considered by the respondents and having found that after receiving the application for grant of appointment according to the policy dated 31.08.1995, the name was entered in the waiting list prepared by the Head Office from the date of retirement of the father of the appellant. His claim was entered at Sr. No. 108 and he was to be given appointment as per the list and availability of post. However, subsequently w.e.f. 28.02.2003 a new policy was enforced where under the grant of appointment to the dependents of the employees who retired on medical grounds was abolished. The rule also contains a stipulation that all the pending cases shall be considered in the light of the new rules and accordingly the claim was rejected and it was further directed that retrenchment compensation to Krishan Lal father of the appellant, if not already paid, be given to him immediately.
RAVINDER SHARMA 2019.03.05 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
LPA No. 415 of 2019 3
(KRISHNA MURARI) CHIEF JUSTICE
22.02.2019
ravinder
| Whether speaking/reasoned | √Yes/No |
|---|---|
| Whether reportable | Yes/No√ |
RAVINDER SHARMA 2019.03.05 15:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the writ petition seeking compassionate appointment.
Whether condonation of delay for re-filing the intra-court appeal was warranted.
Whether the High Court erred in holding no illegality was committed by the authorities in rejecting the claim for compassionate appointment due to age and policy changes.
Naresh Kumar
State of Haryana
Krishna Murari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
