Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Smt Seema Raghav vs U O I (Mines Gov Of India )Ors on 16 December, 2011
Author: Arun Mishra
Bench: Arun Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
ORDER
D.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.17094/2011
SMT. SEEMA RAGHAV Vs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
DATE: 16.12.2011
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. ARUN MISHRA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-I
Mr. Devendra Raghava, for the petitioner.
****
BY THE COURT:(PER HON'BLE JAIN, J.)
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. Petitioner has preferred this writ petition challenging the order dated 03.11.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur in Original Application No.145/2011.
3. Petitioner, in her original application, submitted that her husband Shri Devendra Singh Raghav died on 08.02.2005; she applied for appointment on compassionate ground on 28.02.2005; her application was considered by the Compassionate Appointment Committee(CAC) and her case was recommended for appointment to a suitable post, which was kept under extension because at that point of time, there was no post available. The Compassionate Appointment Committee(CAC) again considered the case of the applicant in its meeting held on 23.10.2007 and again her case was kept under extension as no vacancy was available up to 01.10.2007. The case of the petitioner was again considered in the meeting by the CAC on 22.02.2011, but in terms of DOPT's Office Memorandum dated 05.05.2003, the case of applicant was not recommended for compassionate appointment. Being aggrieved with the said decision, original application was filed.
4. The respondents filed their reply to original application, where they admitted that case of the petitioner was considered for compassionate appointment, twice, but since vacancy was not available, therefore, her case was kept under extension. Thereafter, the matter was again considered on 22.02.2011, but in terms of Office Memorandum dated 05.05.2003, her case was not recommended for compassionate appointment.
5. Learned Tribunal, after considering the submissions of the parties and considering the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana, JT 1994(3) SC 525, (ii) Haryana Electricity Board Vs. Naresh Tanwar, JT 1996(2) SC 542 and (iii) M/s Eastern Coalfields Ltd. Vs. Anil Badyakar & Others, JT 2009(6) SC 624, dismissed the original application of the petitioner.
6. Learned Tribunal has considered the ratio of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above referred cases and held that compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of reasonable time, consideration of such matter is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The Compassionate Appointment Committee(CAC), in its meeting dated 22.02.2011, relied upon the Office Memorandum dated 05.05.2003, in which the maximum time limit for person's name to be kept for consideration, has been fixed as three years.
7. The reasons assigned by the Tribunal for dismissal of the original application of petitioner are based on Office Memorandum dated 05.05.2003 and three judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. We do not find any error or illegality in the order passed by the learned Tribunal so as to interfere with the same.
8. There is no merit in this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. The stay application also stands dismissed.
(NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN-I),J. (ARUN MISHRA),CJ. /KKC