AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
By Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
Heard Shri Pradeep Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Shri Rajni Kant Rai, learned counsel for the respondents.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that vide its order dated 04.02.2022 in O.A./302/2020, this Tribunal had directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in pursuance of his representation dated 19.05.2020 within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. The respondents filed the Writ-A No.7774 of 2022 (Union of India & ors Vs Smt. Kaju Singh & ors) before the Hon’ble High Court and the matter was decided on 31.07.2023 with the following direction:
“6.Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with observation, the petitioners shall consider the claim made by respondent no.2 in accordance with law by reasoned and speaking order. It is clarified that it may remain open to the petitioners to consider the issue of delay, however, after issuing due notice to the respondent to explain the same. If the claim made by respondent no.2 is to be rejected on ground of delay, it is expected, appropriate reasons would be disclosed in the order itself. That exercise may be completed within a period of three months from today.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the respondents issued a notice to the petitioners on 15.02.2024 to explain the delay within 15 days in response to which the petitioners explained the delay in a detailed reply dated 01.03.2024. However, the respondents rejected the claim of the petitioners vide order dated 21.03.2024 without considering the explanation reply dated 01.03.2024.
Learned counsel for the respondents submits that the competent authority has considered the entire issue and rejected the request of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground after giving due opportunity to explain the delay and passed the reasoned and speaking order dated 21.03.2024. Thus, the order of the Tribunal to consider the case of the applicant for compassionate appointment as well as the order of the Hon’ble High Court to consider the claim of the applicant by passing a reasoned order after giving an opportunity to explain the delay has been complied with in letter and spirit and as such the contempt proceedings may be closed and notices be discharged.
We have considered the rival submissions of the learned counsel appearing for both the parties, and perused the entire documents on record.
The relevant portion of the order dated 21.03.2024 passed by the respondents is as under:-
“ इस कार्यालय द्वारा आपको जारी नोटिस दिनांक 15.02.2024 के प्रत्युत्तर में आप द्वारा दिए गये जवाब का अध्ययन सावधानीपूर्वक किया गया और यह पाया गया कि आपने श्री दीपक कुमार सिंह की अनुकम्पा के आधार पर नियुक्ति के संबंध में वर्ष 2019 में आवेदन किया था। यह आवेदन स्व० तीर्थराज के मृत्यु के लगभग 19 वर्ष के बाद तथा श्री दीपक कुमार सिंह की वयस्कता प्राप्त करने का लगभग 08 वर्ष के उपरांत किया गया है। अनुकम्पा के आधार पर नियुक्ति मृतक कर्मचारी के परिवार को आर्थिक और तत्काल राहत हेतु प्रदान की जाती है। श्री दीपक कुमार सिंह के वयस्कता प्राप्त करने के लगभग 08 वर्ष के पश्चात अनुकम्पा के आधार पर नियुक्ति हेतु आवेदन किये जाने से यह स्पष्ट है कि भरण पोषण हेतु आपका परिवार एवं आप लोग सक्षम हैं तथा आपके पास आजीविका के अन्य साधन उपलब्ध हैं । माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने उमेश कुमार नागपाल Vs State of Haryana के मामले में पारित अपने निर्णय दिनांक 04.05.1994 में स्पष्ट किया है कि अनुकम्पा के आधार पर नियुक्ति एक reasonable period के बाद नहीं दी जा सकती तथा यह किसी का अधिकार नहीं है कि वह किसी भी समय नियुक्ति के लिए अनुरोध करे। अतः उपरोक्त स्थिति में स्व० तीर्थराज सिंह की रेल सेवा के दौरान मृत्यु के एवज में श्री दीपक कुमार सिंह को अनुकम्पा के आधार पर नियुक्ति देने का कोई औचित्य नहीं बनता है। अतः इनकी अनुकम्पा के आधार पर नियुक्ति के केस/ अनुरोध को अस्वीकृत किया जाता है।”
In view of the above, the submission raised on behalf of the respondents is liable to be accepted and the proceedings of the present Contempt Petition are liable to be closed since no case of disobedience of the direction of the order of this Tribunal is made out as the Tribunal has not made any specific observation compelling the respondents to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner despite the delay of almost 19 years. It has merely directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in pursuance of his representation dated 19.05.2020 and the respondents have decided the issue by passing the aforesaid reasoned and speaking order. Thus, proceedings of the present Contempt Petition are closed and the notices stand discharged.
All the associated M.A.s also stand disposed of.