Partly allowed

Union of India v. Manish Yogi S/O Late Shri Nemichand

Rajasthan HC18 Feb 2022CW/2276/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the Central Administrative Tribunal's order directing the Railway Board to consider a compassionate appointment application based on a 2019 circular. The court held that the 2019 circular lacked retrospective effect but upheld the direction to consider the applicant's fitness for appointment under current valid rules.

What did the court decide?

Revoked the direction to consider the case in light of the circular dated 30.12.2019; upheld the direction to consider the case if the applicant is fit for appointment on compassionate grounds.

Union of India Vs Manish Yogi S/O Late… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2276/2022

¶3

Union Of India, Through Its General Manager, North Western Railway, Head Quarters, Jawahar Circle, Jagatpura, Jaipur (302017)

¶4

Divisional Railway Manager, North Western Railway, Jawahar Circle, Jagatpura, Jaipur (302017) (Raj.)

¶5

----Petitioners/Non-Applicant

¶6

Versus

¶7

Manish Yogi S/o Late Shri Nemichand, Aged About 18 Years, Resident Of Village Kundli, Post Katrathal, Tehsil And District Sikar (Raj.) For Compassionate Appointment, Father Was Working On The Post Of Track- Maintainer- Ii

¶8

----Respondent-Applicant

¶9

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Naved Rafiq

¶10

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

¶11

Judgment

¶12

18/02/2022

¶13

Petitioner has preferred this civil writ petition aggrieved with the order dated 02.12.2021 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short ‘the learned Tribunal’) in OA No. 604/2018, whereby the Original Application of the respondent-applicant was allowed and the order dated 16.08.2018 passed by the petitioners was quashed and the petitioners were directed to consider the case of the applicant-respondent for compassionate appointment in light of RBE circular dated 30.12.2019, if he is otherwise found fit for appointment on compassionate grounds.

¶14

(2 of 3)

¶15

[CW-2276/2022]

¶16

It is contended by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the RBE circular dated 30.12.2019 could not be given a retrospective effect. It is also contended that order dated 16.08.2018 was passed in furtherance of the RBE circular dated 21.03.2018. It is also contended that if the RBE circular dated 30.12.2019 was given retrospective effect then RBE circular dated 21.03.2018 should also be given retrospective effect and in that case the respondent-applicant was not entitled for compassionate appointment as he was son of second wife of the deceasedrailway employee.

¶17

It is contended by counsel for the respondent-applicant that the railway employee died on 16.03.2016 and an application for compassionate appointment was filed on 12.04.2016. It is contended that initially vide letter dated 09.06.2017, the prayer for compassionate appointment was declined in view of circular RBE No. 01/1992 dated 02.01.1992. It is also contended by counsel for the respondent-applicant that RBE circular No. 01/1992 dated 02.01.1992 was challenged before the High Court of Calcutta by Namita Buldar and Anr. and the Calcutta High Court quashed the RBE circular. It is also contended that the similar view was taken by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay and ultimately the Hon’ble Apex Court has upheld these judgments and orders passed by the Bombay High Court.

¶18

We have considered the contentions.

¶19

It is evident that RBE circular No. 01/1992 dated 02.01.1992 which was made a basis for rejection of the prayer for compassionate appointment was struck down by the Calcutta High Court and at the relevant time when the application for

¶20

(3 of 3)

¶21

[CW-2276/2022]

¶22

compassionate appointment was rejected the circular was not in force. Admittedly, the subsequent circular dated 21.03.2018 cannot be given retrospective effect so as to apply to the application filed by the respondent-applicant for compassionate appointment as the same was filed on 12.04.2016. The contention of the counsel for the Union that the learned Tribunal has erred in directing the petitioners to pass order in light of RBE circular dated 30.12.2019 has force since the circular dated 30.12.2019 cannot be given retrospective effect. Since both the circulars dated 21.03.2018 and 30.12.2019 were not in operation on the date when the application for compassionate appointment was filed and rejected, both the circulars cannot be given retrospective effect. 6. The writ petition is accordingly partly allowed while holding that the circular dated 30.12.2019 does not have retrospective effect. The rest of the order directing the petitioners to consider the case of the applicant-respondent for compassionate appointment if he is found fit for appointment on compassionate grounds is upheld.

¶23

The writ petition is accordingly partly allowed.

¶24

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

¶25

(PANKAJ BHANDARI),J

¶26

Ritu/52

Union of India v. Manish Yogi S/O Late Shri Nemichand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Union of India v. Manish Yogi S/O Late Shri Nemichand

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

Shahbuddin S/O Shri Karima Vs State of Rajasthan

Aatish Garg S/O Prakash Chand Garg Vs the Collector

Subhash Son of Hoshiyar @ Pachendar Vs State of Rajasthan

Balkishan S/O Kamal Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Jeevanram S/O Nanagram B/C Balai Vs State of Rajasthan

Commercial Taxes Officer Vs M/S Shyam Vinod S/O Shri Ram Ji Lal