Disposed

Abhendra Chhetri v. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary

Uttarakhand HC21 Dec 2020WPMS/2217/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners, son and late widow of a deceased servant, challenged a notice to vacate official accommodation and sought compassionate appointment. Petitioner no. 2 deceased; court granted liberty to son to apply for compassionate appointment within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to petitioner no. 1 to apply for compassionate application within two weeks; respondent to forward for decision within 10 days; authority to decide within six weeks.

Abhendra Chhetri Vs State of Uttarakhand… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Uttarakhand HC (2020)

¶1

WPMS No. 2217 of 2017

¶2

Hon’ble Manoj K. Tiwari, J.

¶3

Ms. Shakshi Singh and Mr. C.K. Sharma, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. Devesh Ghildiyal, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.

¶4

Mr. Ganesh Kandpal, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 & 3.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the parties through video conferencing.

¶6

This writ petition has been filed by the son and widow of Late Narendra Singh Chhetri, who served as a Fitter in Doiwala Sugar Company Ltd., Dehradun. According to the petitioner, Narendra Singh Chettri died while still in service on 28.02.2011. His widow ( petitioner no. 2 ) applied for compassionate appointment, but her request was not considered on the ground that as per policy, no woman employee is to be appointed in the Sugar Company.

¶7

Petitioners have challenged the notices issued by Executive Director, Sugar Company Ltd. ( respondent no. 3 ) in the month of June, 2017 addressed to petitioner no. 2, whereby she was asked to vacate the official accommodation, which was allotted to her husband during his life time. It was stated in the notice that if official accommodation is not vacated within a week, then her electricity and water supply shall be disconnected. Since Late Narendra Singh Chhetri, to whom the official accommodation was allotted, died in the year 2011, therefore, petitioners had no authority in law to retain the accommodation meant for serving employees.

¶8

In such view of the matter, relief clause no. 1, as prayed, cannot be granted.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioners has apprised the Court that, widow of Narendra Singh Chhetri ( petitioner no. 2 ) has passed

¶10

away on 14.12.2017. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further apprised the Court that amount, equal to twelve months salary, was offered to the petitioner in lieu of compassionate appointment, but petitioner had not accepted the amount so offered to him. He further submits that since petitioner ( Abhendra Chhetri ) is the only surviving male legal representative of Late Narendra Singh Chhetri, therefore, his claim be considered for compassionate appointment. He further submits that whatever delay has been caused in the matter is due to inaction on the part of the authorities and petitioners had made application within time and they were also representing the matter before the Authorities. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, writ petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner no. 1 to make an application seeking compassionate appointment to respondent no. 3. If such application is made within two weeks from today, the Executive Director ( respondent no. 3 ) shall refer the matter for decision to the Competent Authority within ten days from the date of receipt of such application and the Competent Authority shall examine petitioner’s claim and take appropriate decision, in accordance with law, within six weeks from the date petitioner’s application is placed before him.

¶11

Aswal

¶12

(Manoj K. Tiwari, J.) 21.12.2020

Abhendra Chhetri v. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhendra Chhetri v. State of Uttarakhand through Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Roop Singh Kathayat Vs State of Uttarakhand

State of Uttarakhand through Its Principal Secretary Forest Department Vs Raspal Singh

M/s Dev Bhoomi Avas Ltd.. a Company Vs Master Risabh Kohli

Sri Umesh Chandra Devrani Vs State of Uttarakhand through Secretary Labour Dehradun Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand Auto Vehicles Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of Uttarakhand

M/S Jeet Ram and Sons Vs Govind Ballabh Pant University of Agriculture and Technology