Disposed

The Union of India and Ors. v. Mujjaffar Hussain Shaikh

Rajasthan HC6 Sept 2018CW/7259/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Rajasthan dismissed a writ petition challenging a responaent's rejection for compassionate appointment due to a criminal conviction which was trivial in nature and met with probation under the Probation of Offenders Act. The Court held the rejection was erroneous.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as the Tribunal's order was well-reasoned.

The Union of India and Ors. Vs Mujjaffar… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2018)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT

¶2

JODHPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.7259/2018

¶4

The Union Of India, Through General Manager, North Western Railway, Jaipur.

¶5

The Divisional Railway Manager, North Western Railway, Ajmer.

¶6

The Divisional Railway Manager (Establishment), Ajmer.

¶7

Chief Crew Controller, North Western Railway, Udaipur City, Udaipur.

¶8

Versus

¶9

Mujaffar Hussain Shaikh S/o Shri Hamid Hussain, R/o Plot No. 647, Garib Nawaz Colony, Lane No. 2 Mulla Talia, Udaipur, Rajasthan.

¶10

		----Respondent
For Petitioner(s)	: Mr.Kamal Dave
For Respondent(s)	: Mr.S.K.M.Vyas

¶11

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

¶12

Order

¶13

06/09/2018

¶14

The respondent’s/original applicant’s father was working as Loco Pilot with the petitioner-Railways, and on being declared medically decategorized and upon being voluntarily retired, the respondent/original applicant was offered appointment on compassionate grounds.

¶15

The respondent/original applicant was informed vide letter dated 09.10.2015 that his appointment on the post of Hammal Khalasi was sanctioned, in accordance with the recommendations of the Screening Committee and the directions

¶16

(2 of 4)

¶17

[CW-7259/2018]

¶18

issued by the Railway Board as well as Divisional Railway Manager. However, when the respondent/original applicant was not given appointment, he made representation, upon which the petitioners declined appointment to the respondent/original applicant on the ground that a criminal case was registered against him in the year 2012.

¶19

The petitioner-Union of India took a stand that the respondent/original applicant was not fit to be given appointment, because he had been convicted under Sections 341, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code by a competent court, and moreover, the respondent/original applicant had not mentioned in his application form the details of such conviction.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur is bad, as it did not consider the fact that the respondent/original applicant had willfully concealed the information regarding his conviction, as above.

¶21

Learned counsel for the respondent/original applicant however, submits that the impugned order is justified, as while recording conviction of the respondent/original applicant for the offences under Sections 341, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, City (South), Udaipur, had granted him the benefit of probation under Section 41 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, and thus, the respondent/original applicant was in fact eligible for compassionate appointment.

¶22

Learned counsel for the respondent/original applicant relied upon the precedent law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court

¶23

(3 of 4)

¶24

[CW-7259/2018]

¶25

in Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. , reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471, relevant paras 38.4 and 38.4.1 of which read as under:-

¶26

38.4 In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before filling of the application/verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following recourse appropriate to the case may be adopted:-

¶27

38.4.1 In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse.

¶28

After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as examining the record of the case, alongwith the precedent law cited at the Bar, this Court finds that the respondent/original applicant was offered compassionate appointment on the post of Hammal Khalasi, and admittedly, he was convicted under Sections 341, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code alongwith the benefit of probation under Section 41 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.

¶29

The aforequoted para 38.4.1 of the precedent law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra) is directly applicable in the present facts, as the allegation and the conviction against the respondent/original applicant are trivial in nature, and moreover, Section 41 of the Probation of Offenders Act would not render the

¶30

(4 of 4)

¶31

[CW-7259/2018]

¶32

respondent/original applicant ineligible for compassionate appointment. Thus, the petitioners should have ignored the aforementioned conviction of the respondent/original applicant.

¶33

In light of the aforesaid observations, the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal is well reasoned and does not call for any interference by this Court.

¶34

Consequently, the present writ petition is dismissed.

¶35

(DR. PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J

¶36

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG),CJ

¶37

Skant/-

The Union of India and Ors. v. Mujjaffar Hussain Shaikh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Union of India and Ors. v. Mujjaffar Hussain Shaikh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raj.Council of Elementary Edu. and Anr. Vs Alpesh Gangawat and Ors.

Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghthan and Ors. Vs Keshav Dev Sharma and Anr.

Jodhpur Vidhyut Vitran Nigam, Ltd. Andanr Vs Smt. Maya Saini

Akshay Kumar Sanghi and Anr. Vs Ratan Kumar Sanghi and Ors.

Bhanwar Lal and Ors. Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.

Sahdev Gujrati Vs State of Rajasthan and Ors.