AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Shri Dharmendra Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant, and Shri Shree Prakash Rai, learned counsel for the respondents, are present and heard.
Present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following reliefs:-
“(i)This Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to quash the impugned order dated 20.07.2023 passed by respondents (Annexure No.A-1 of the Original Application).
(ii)This Hon’ble may graciously be pleased to direct the Respondent No.5 to consider the candidature of the applicant and provide the compassionate appointment at the place of his father (deceased employee Ratan Lal Safai Karamchari).
(iii)Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case may be given in favour of the applicant.
(iv)Award the cost of the original application in favour of the applicant.”
Brief facts of the case are that the applicant’s father died while serving as Safai Karamchari in the respondents’ office on 11.05.2005 leaving behind his widow Smt. Tara Devi, and two sons Ravi Kumar and Sri Kant. Several applications and reminders are said to have been moved by the applicant for appointment on compassionate grounds. Thereafter, the applicant also approached this Tribunal through O.A./553/2021 which was disposed of with the direction to the respondents to decide the representation of the applicant. The applicant had also filed a contempt petition after which the impugned order dated 20.07.2023 was passed by the respondents considering the claim of the applicant for grant of compassionate appointment and rejecting the same on the ground that he could not find place in top 04 in the relative marks of merit list and hence could not be recommended for compassionate appointment.
Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the impugned order has been passed without showing the merit points awarded to the applicant in comparison with other candidates. He also argued that even after the lapse of such a long time, appointment has not been granted to the applicant on compassionate grounds.
Learned counsel for the respondents argued that the applicant’s brother namely Ravi Kumar was considered for compassionate appointment thrice. Thereafter, the applicant had approached for his appointment on compassionate grounds which was also considered in accordance with the rules but he scored less marks than the last selected candidate, hence, he could not be selected/recommended for appointment. It was also stated that the order dated 20.07.2023 clearly provides that if the applicant wants he can apply afresh with all the latest required documents for consideration in the next Board of Officers to be held in the subsequent year.
In reply, learned counsel for the applicant states that the O.A. be disposed of with liberty to the applicant to submit the relevant documents before the competent authority as has been disclosed in paragraph no.6 of the impugned order passed by the respondents themselves.
I have considered the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire documents on record.
In view of the prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant and the submission of learned counsel for the respondents that the impugned order itself provides that the applicant may apply afresh with all the latest required documents for consideration in the next Board meeting, the respondents are hereby directed to reconsider the claim of the applicant for grant of compassionate appointment in the next Board/CRC meeting in accordance with rules regulating the matter duly considering the case of the applicant on the basis of relative merit point in a transparent manner.
The O.A. stands disposed of with above directions. All associate M.A.s also stand disposed of. No order as to costs.