AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Vinod K. Sharma, J.—The Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing
the Respondents to issue appointment to the Petitioner on compassionate ground.
The case of the Petitioner is that his father died while in service in the month of August 2000. As per the policy of the Respondents, the
Petitioner was eligible for appointment on compassionate ground, as his father died in harness and there was No. source of income with the family.
In response to the application, the Respondent/bank asked for certain information which was supplied.
Thereafter, vide order, dated 6.7.2002, the request of the Petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected, by passing a non-
speaking order.
On notice, a counter has been filed, wherein, a positive stand taken is, that the Petitioner is not eligible for appointment on compassionate
ground as his case does not fall within the policy framed for appointment on compassionate ground.
The stand of the Respondents cannot be accepted, in view of the settled law that the order effecting civil rights of a person should be a self-
speaking order, and if it does not disclose the reasons, these cannot be substituted by the averments in the counter filed to justify the order.
The Writ Petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded back to the Respondent/bank to consider the claim of
the Petitioner afresh and pass a detailed speaking order accepting/rejecting the claim of the Petitioner. No. costs.