Calcutta High Court
Sheo Shankar Das vs Union Of India on 4 March, 2008
WP No. 132 of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
SHEO SHANKAR DAS
Versus
UNION OF INDIA
BEFORE:
The Hon'ble JUSTICE SAILENDRA PRASAD TALUKDAR
Date : 4th March, 2008.
The Court : Heard the learned Counsel for the writ petitioner, who referring to
the copies of the various annexures to the writ application, submits that the authority concerned
has been consistently negligent in consideration of the grievances of the writ petitioner. The
grievance of the writ petitioner as ventilated by the learned counsel appears to be that though her
father, an employee of the Telecommunication Department, died in harness in 1997, despite all
possible steps being taken by the writ petitioner, he has not been provided with any
compassionate appointment nor his prayer has been considered in the right perspective. Learned
Counsel for the private respondent nos. 6 to 14, submits that the writ application is not
maintainable as it essentially relates to a family dispute. Respondent nos. 2 to 5 are also represented by the learned Counsel who raises dispute regarding jurisdiction of the Court. In course of his submission, he further mentions that all the legitimate dues of the father of the present writ petitioner has duly been settled thereby leaving no scope for any further grievances. It is also submitted that the father of the writ petitioner having died in 1997, the present 2 respondent nos. 2- 4 are under no obligation to accommodate the writ petitioner with such a compassionate appointment.
Without getting into the merits of the grievances or the stand taken by the respondent authorities, this court does not find any justificatoin as to why the authority concerned shall not give the representation submitted by the writ petitioner the attention it deserves. It appears that such representation dated 14.9.2007 was placed before the Chief Superintendent, Department of Telecommunication, VSNL but as submitted by the learned Counsel, the same has not received any response so far.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the present writ application is disposed of with a direction upon the respondent no.3 herein to consider the matter in its proper perspective and pass a reasoned order in accordance with the rules. For better appreciation, the writ petitioner is directed to submit a fresh representation annexing thereto a copy of the present writ petition and its annexures within 2 weeks from this date. Upon receipt of such representation, the respondent no.3 must consider the same within 6 weeks and must take appropriate steps or pass an appropriate order in accordance with the rules - of course after giving the writ petitioner an opportunity of hearing. Action to be so taken or order to be so passed shall immediately be intimated to the writ petitioner within 2 weeks thereafter.
Since no affidavit-in-opposition has been filed, allegations/averments made in the writ petition are deemed not to have been admitted.
Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(SAILENDRA PRASAD TALUKDAR, J.) subash RO[ct]