Dismissed

Chief General Manager, Telecommunication Rajasthan v. Subhash Kumar Yadav S/O Late Sh. Banshidhar Yadav

Rajasthan HC15 Feb 2024CW/2047/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging a reconsideration order regarding a compassionate appointment. Upholding the Central Administrative Tribunal's direction to reconsider the applicant's eligibility due to indigent conditions in a rented accommodation, the Court dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed, upholding the Tribunal's direction for reconsideration of the respondent's compassionate appointment application.

Chief General Manager, Telecommunication Rajasthan… — Service and Employment | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:7791-DB]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2047/2024

¶4

Chief General Manager, Telecommunication Rajasthan, Telecom Circle, Sardar Patel Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.

¶5

Assistant General Manager (Rectt. And Estt.), Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Office Of Chief General Manager, Telecommunication Rajasthan, Telecom Circle, Sardar Patel Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur.

¶6

----Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Subhash Kumar Yadav S/o Late Sh. Banshidhar Yadav, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of Village Lalpura, District Jaipur, (Raj.)-303706.

¶9

----Respondent

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jitendra Sharma For Respondent(s) :

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA

¶12

Order

¶13

15/02/2024

¶14

Avneesh Jhingan, J (Oral):

¶15

This petition is filed aggrieved of order dated 16.08.2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘Tribunal’) remanding the matter to reconsider the case of compassionate appointment of the respondent.

¶16

The brief facts are that father of the applicant Shri Banshidhar Yadav died in the year 2006 while he was working as Lineman in Telecommunication Department. The respondent applied for compassionate appointment, the application was rejected in the year 2008 on the ground that applicant had not

[2024:RJ-JP:7791-DB]

[CW-2047/2024]

(2 of 3)

possessed the minimum 55 points for being termed as indigent, for consideration for compassionate appointment. In challenge before the Tribunal, the order was set aside on 08.11.2019 and the matter was remanded back with the direction to take into consideration that the family of the applicant was living in a rented house. The petitioner failed before this Court in a challenge made to the order dated 08.11.2019.

¶21

The prayer for compassionate appointment was again rejected on 19.07.2021 by not awarding ten points for failure of respondent to produce rent deed to establish that the family was living in a rented house at the time of death of the employee. The respondent challenged the rejection contending that the impugned order was passed in non compliance of the directions given by the Tribunal. The respondent succeeded and Tribunal held that the order dated 19.07.2021 was passed in defiance of the directions issued by the Tribunal. It was further considered that the Field Officer had submitted a report that family of the deceased employee was living in indigent conditions in a rented accommodation. The order was set aside and the respondents were directed to reconsider the request of the applicant if otherwise found eligible as per law.

¶22

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the case has already been reconsidered and the order passed is in consonance with the directions of the Tribunal. 5. The contention raised by the counsel for the petitioners lacks merit. The report submitted by the Field Officer was to the effect that family of the deceased employee was living in indigent condition in a rented accommodation is not being challenged. The

[2024:RJ-JP:7791-DB]

[CW-2047/2024]

(3 of 3)

conclusion of the Tribunal that the directions issued were not complied with, justifies setting aside of the order and directing reconsideration of the issue of compassionate appointment. No case is made out for interference in writ jurisdiction. The Writ petition is dismissed.

¶27

(SHUBHA MEHTA),J

¶28

(AVNEESH JHINGAN),J

¶29

Simple Kumawat /03

¶30

Whether Reportable: Yes /No

Chief General Manager, Telecommunication Rajasthan v. Subhash Kumar Yadav S/O Late Sh. Banshidhar Yadav

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chief General Manager, Telecommunication Rajasthan v. Subhash Kumar Yadav S/O Late Sh. Banshidhar Yadav

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

Pukh Raj Gurjar S/O Shri Nathu Lal Gurjar Vs Union of India

M/S P.N. and Company Jaipur Vs Union of India and Ors.

M/S Jal Mahal Resorts Private Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Central Goods and Service Tax

Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

M/S Agrs Ventures LLP Vs State of Rajasthan