Disposed

Divyansh Jharwal S/O Shri Purnesh Kumar @ Purnesh Jharwal v. the Assistant General Manager (Hrm)

Rajasthan HC19 Mar 2024CW/426/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the rejection of a compassionate appointment application for a clerk position. The High Court, noting disputed questions of fact and lack of natural justice, directed the bank to reconsider the petitioner's representation and issue a speaking order within two months before disposing of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Branch Manager/competent authority to consider petitioner's representation within two months and adjudicate by a speaking order affording due compliance with natural justice.

Divyansh Jharwal S/O Shri Purnesh Kumar @… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2024)

(1 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JP:13697]

[CW-426/2024]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶5

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 426/2024

¶6

Divyansh Jharwal S/o Shri Purnesh Kumar @ Purnesh Jharwal, Aged About 28 Years, R/o B-22, Sanjay Colony/basti, New R P A Road, Panipech, Jaipur (Raj.)- 302016

¶7

----Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

The Assistant General Manager (Hrm), Bank Of Maharashtra, Manager Office Lokmangal, 1501-Shivaji Nagar, Pune Maharashtra- 411005

¶10

The Zonal/deputy Zonal Manager, Zonal Office, Jaipur Zone, Bank Of Maharashtra, Ahinsa Circle, C- Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.)

¶11

The Branch Manager, Jhotwara Branch, Bank Of Maharashtra, 96- Kalyan Kunj, Near Kanta Chauraha, Jhotwara, Jaipur (Raj.).

¶12

----Respondents

¶13

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arjun Singh Shekhwat For Respondent(s) :

¶14

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

¶15

Order

¶16

19/03/2024

¶17

The instant petition is filed with the following prayers:-

¶18

“1.Set aside the order/office letter no.AX1/ST/Compensation Appt/14642/2019-20, dated 23.12.2019 and letter no.AX57/Staff/Comp. Appt./14642/2021-22, dated 09.08.2021 (Annexure1).

¶19

2. Or, Directions may be given to the respondent bank to accept the compassionate appointment application dated 09.10.2018 of the petitioner.

¶20

3. Or, any other order which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case may kindly passed in favour of the petitioner.

(2 of 3)

[2024:RJ-JP:13697]

[CW-426/2024]

4. Or, the litigation cost incurred may also be ordered in favour of the petitioner.”

¶25

The lis before this Court essentially stems from the rejection of the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment dated 09.10.2018 for the post of Clerk. In this regard, learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner’s father rendered his services on the post of Manager/Cashier-II before the respondentauthorities, from where he voluntarily retired after the completion of 20 years of qualifying service. The petitioner’s father requested for his relieving from service on 25.03.2018, after the completion of his notice period of three months. A medical opinion was also furnished qua the fact that the petitioner was not in a position to perform his day to day routine and office work.

¶26

Learned counsel further submitted that the said application was kept pending for a long period of time, on account of delay on the parts of the respondents. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner’s father was relieved from service on 16.04.2018. The said act of delay in accepting the VRS application was contended by the counsel for the petitioner to be intentional and malicious, as the respondents wanted the petitioner to attain the age of 55 years, so that his dependent family members could not attain avail the benefit of compassionate appointment.

¶27

In this background, present petition was filed. It is submitted that letters/orders dated 09.08.2021 and 23.12.2019 (Annexure1) were passed without hearing the petitioner, and on grounds which are factually incorrect, illegal and untenable.

¶28

Heard.

¶29

Upon hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing through the record of the petition, it appears that the

[2024:RJ-JP:13697]

[CW-426/2024]

(3 of 3)

dispute before this Court involves certain disputed questions of fact. Moreover, even upon a perusal of the order impugned, it is reflected that no opportunity of being heard was granted to the petitioner.

¶34

In the facts and circumstances of the case, this court directs the Branch Manager, Bank of Maharashtra, Jhotwara Branch/ any other competent authority to consider the representation of the petitioner and adjudicate upon the said matter.

¶35

Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to file a representation before the respondent-authorities within a period of two months, encapsulating his grievance. Thereafter, the respondentauthorities shall adjudicate upon the said representation within a period of two months, by way of a speaking order, after effectuating due compliance with the principles of natural justice and also, the law applicable.

¶36

In view of the above, present petition is disposed of. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

¶37

(SAMEER JAIN),J

¶38

JKP/11

Divyansh Jharwal S/O Shri Purnesh Kumar @ Purnesh Jharwal v. the Assistant General Manager (Hrm)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Divyansh Jharwal S/O Shri Purnesh Kumar @ Purnesh Jharwal v. the Assistant General Manager (Hrm)

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

Mahaveer Prasad Jain S/O Late Shri Hazari Lal Jain Vs Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.

Sanjiv Son of Shri Banwari Lal Vs State of Rajasthan

Abdul Aziz S/O Shri Bashir Mohammad Vs State of Rajasthan

Nirmal Kumar Agrawal S/O Suresh Chand Agrawal, Vs Rajasthan Staff Selection Board

Sahil Kumar Mavaliya S/O Kalyan Sahay Mavaliya Vs Rajasthan Staff Selection Board

Rajendra Kumawat S/O Ramchandra Kumawat Vs Rajasthan Staff Selection Board