AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
ORDER
Shri S K Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Chakrapani Vatsyayan, learned counsel for the respondents were present at the time of hearing. Although the matter is listed under the heading of “Fresh Admission”, the same is decided finally at this stage itself with the consent of the parties.
The instant original application has been filed by the applicant seeking following relief:
“i.To direct the respondent no 2 & 3 to appoint the applicant on any suitable post in the department in place of deceased – employee i.e., his father, on compassionate ground, under Dying in Harness Scheme.
ii.Issue any other suitable order or direction as deems fit proper by the Tribunal in the circumstances of the case.
iii.Award costs to the applicant.”
The brief facts of the case as narrated in the OA are that the applicant’s father had died in harness on 14.10.2025 while being in the service of the respondents. Thus, the applicant preferred representation for his appointment under dying in harness rules but is aggrieved by the fact that the respondents are not taking any action on the same. Thus, by way of the instant OA, as his main relief, the applicant has prayed for a direction to the respondents to appoint him on compassionate grounds.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the father of the applicant Late Bikki Ram who was working in the respondents’ department, died in harness on 14.10.2025. Applicant’s father was the sole bread earner of the family and therefore, after his death, the applicant approached before the department and preferred representation dated 31.7.2026 seeking appointment on any suitable post under dying in harness rules. Learned counsel submitted that the applicant has passed High School in the year 2022 and is currently aged 20 years. Learned counsel further argued that no decision has Central Administrative Tribunalbeen taken on the representation preferred by the applicant and submitted that at this stage, the applicant would be satisfied if the respondents are directed to take a decision on the representation of the applicant in a time bound manner and by way of a reasoned and speaking order.
Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer of the applicant’s counsel and argued that if any representation was preferred by the applicant before the Competent Authority of the respondents, he should have waited for the order on the same. Instead, he has approached before this Tribunal through this misconceived original application and the same is liable to be dismissed at this stage itself.
I have considered the rival contentions and gone through the records.
In this matter, as is evident from the record, the applicant’s father had died in harness on 14.10.2025. Subsequently, the applicant has preferred a representation dated 31.07.2026 (annexed as Annexure -3 to the OA) before the competent authority seeking appointment on a suitable post under dying in harness rules. However, no decision has been made on the application of the applicant till date. Thus, keeping in view the limited prayer of the applicant’s counsel, the instant original application is disposed of at this stage itself. The competent authority amongst the respondents is hereby directed to decide the representation dated 31.07.2026 (Annexed as Annexure-3 to the OA) by way of a reasoned and speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order, without fail. The order passed in this regard shall be supplied to the applicant within ten days of its passing. Needless to say, I have not commented anything on the merit of the case nor examined the same.
All associated MAs stand disposed of accordingly. No costs.