Remanded

Kuldeep Singh Tailor Son of Late Shri Nemi Chand Verma v. the Director (E-Ii), Employees State Insurance Corporation

Rajasthan HC22 Apr 2024CW/11603/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the Central Administrative Tribunal's order dismissing an original application for compassionate appointment. The matter is remanded for fresh consideration on merits as the Tribunal relied on incorrect grounds and ignored eligible unmarried sisters.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal set aside; matter remanded to decide the Original Application afresh.

Kuldeep Singh Tailor Son of Late Shri Nemi… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:18689-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11603/2021

¶4

Kuldeep Singh Tailor Son Of Late Shri Nemi Chand Verma, Aged About 20 Years, (Late Nemi Chand Verma Was Working As U.d.c. At Branch Office, Panchdeep Bhawan, Employees State Insurance Corporation Through Its Branch Manager, Pur Road, Bheelwara, Rajasthan), Resident Of 678, Ambika Colony, Bihari Ganj, Ajmer (Rajasthan),

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Director (E-Ii), Employees State Insurance Corporation, Panchdeep Bhawan, C.i.g. Marg, New Delhi, Pin Code - 110002.

¶8

The Regional Office, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Through Its Regional Director,panchdeep Bhawan, Bhawani Singh Marg, Jaipur, Rajasthan, Pin Code - 302001.

¶9

The Sub-Regional Office, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Through Its Assistant Director, 5, Bhupalpura, R.k. Plaza, Udaipur, Rajasthan, Pin Code 313001

¶10

The Branch Office, Panchdeep Bhawan, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Through Its Branch Manager, Pur Road, Bheelwara, Rajasthan, Pin Code - 311001.

¶11

----Respondents

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Anima Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Tej Prakash Sharma

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL

¶14

Order

¶15

22/04/2024

¶16

This petition is filed aggrieved of order dated 15.09.2021 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short ‘The Tribunal’).

¶17

[2024:RJ-JP:18689-DB]

¶18

[CW-11603/2021]

¶19

(2 of 3)

¶20

The relevant facts are that father of the petitioner was employed in Employee State Insurance Corporation (ESIC) and died on 06.06.2016 while in service. The deceased left behind a widow, two daughters and a son (petitioner). The petitioner was 17 years of age at the time of the death of deceased. On 15.07.2016. the petitioner through his mother applied for compassionate appointment. The application remained pending and ESIC sent communications that since the petitioner is minor, name of other member of the family be substituted. The petitioner on attaining majority filed another application on 21.05.2018 for compassionate appointment.

¶21

The application was rejected on 30.01.2019. The instructions of the Department of Personnel and Training, Government of India were relied upon to submit that only in cases where the ward of the deceased employee is minor and is the only person available for appointment, the application can be made on attaining the age of eighteen. Whereas in the present case at time of death of the employe two elder unmarried sisters of petitioner were eligible for appointment. Aggrieved of rejection, Original Application (for shorty OA) was filed before the Tribunal and on dismissal the present petition is filed.

¶22

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal has not considered the merits of the case and has dismissed the OA on a ground non existent in rejection order.

¶23

Counsel for the respondent defends the impugned order and submits that the mother of the petitioner was a Government employee.

¶24

(3 of 3)

¶25

[2024:RJ-JP:18689-DB]

¶26

[CW-11603/2021]

¶27

Heard counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings.

¶28

The rejection was on the ground that a minor ward could have availed relaxation of applying for compassionate appointment on attainment of majority only in cases where no other family member was eligible for seeking compassionate appointment on the date of the death employee. Whereas in case in hand the unmarried daughters were eligible for appointment on the date on the death of the deceased.

¶29

The Tribunal has not dealt with the issue involved, rather has proceeded as if the claim was rejected on the ground that the family of the deceased employee was not in indigent circumstances, which was not the ground of rejection.

¶30

The impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded back to decide the OA afresh.

¶31

Considering that the deceased died in the year 2016, the Tribunal shall make an endeavour to expeditiously decide the matter.

(BHUWAN GOYAL),J

(AVNEESH JHINGAN),J

SUDEEPAK/HS/40

Reportable Yes

Kuldeep Singh Tailor Son of Late Shri Nemi Chand Verma v. the Director (E-Ii), Employees State Insurance Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kuldeep Singh Tailor Son of Late Shri Nemi Chand Verma v. the Director (E-Ii), Employees State Insurance Corporation

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

M/S Ashoka Picture Palace Alwa Vs Assistant Commissioner, Commer

M/S Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Gujarat State Road Transport C Vs the Commissioner, Transport De

M/S Hcl Infosystems Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M/S Shree Cement Limited

Commissioner of Customs and Excise Vs Dee Chem Plastics Pvt. Ltd.