Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur

Virendra Singh Nishad vs Housing And Urban Poverty Alleviation on 15 February, 2022

                                1                          O.A.No. 202/00190/2022




 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH
                     Circuit Sitting, Gwalior
            Original Application No.202/00190/2022
       Gwalior, this Tuesday, the 15th day of February, 2022
     HON'BLE SHRI RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, JUDICIAL MEMBER
 Virendra Singh Nishad, S/o Late Shri Natthi Lal Nishad, Aged
 - 30 years, Occupation - Nil, R/o -Mahatma Nand Ki
 Bagichi, Purana Shahar, Dhaulpur, District - Dhaulpur
 328001 (Rajasthan)

                                            -Applicant
 (By Advocate - Shri Ravindra Sarvate, along with Shri
 Suresh Kushwah)
                                Versus
 1. Union of India, Through - The Chief Secretary, Ministry of
 Urban Development and Poverty Alleviation, O/o - I.P.
 Bhawan, New Delhi - 110002

 2. The Executive Engineer, Central Public Works
 Department, Central Mandal, 35 City Centre, Gwalior -
 474011 (M.P.)

                                                     -Respondents

 (By Advocate - Shri B M Patel)

                        O R D E R(ORAL)

Heard.

2. This O.A. has been filed against the inaction on behalf of the respondents for not deciding the issue of compassionate appointment to the applicant till date.

3. From the pleadings, the case of the applicant is that the father of the applicant expired on 05.06.2013. Thereafter, the applicant had submitted an application with documents i.e. affidavit, Ration Card, Bank Pass Book, No Objection Page 1 of 3 2 O.A.No. 202/00190/2022 Certificate from all his brothers and the affidavit of the mother, which are annexed as Annexure A/5 & Annexure A/6. On 13.04.2015, the applicant received a letter from the respondents and the applicant had duly replied to that letter. The respondent no. 2 issued a letter dated 07.10.2015, the applicant has further replied to that letter. On 03.06.2016, the respondent no. 2 has again issued a letter and the applicant has reply to that letter also but no action was taken by the respondent no. 2. Subsequently, on 14.09.2017, 09.04.2018 & 27.08.2019, the respondent no. 2 again wrote letters to the applicant which were also duly replied as per Annexure A/13, Annexure A/15 & Annexure A/19 respectively, but till date, the respondent no. 2 has not taken the final decision.

4. At this stage, the counsel for the applicant submits that applicant will be satisfied if the competent authority (respondent no. 2) is directed to decide the case of the applicant regarding compassionate appointment, in a time bound manner.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection if the competent authority is directed to decide the case of the applicant on the above lines.

6. This Tribunal has considered the matter and is of the view that the natural justice will be met if the respondent authority is directed to decide the case of the applicant regarding compassionate appointment in a time bound manner as per law.

7. Resultantly, respondent no. 2 is directed to decide the case of the applicant, if not already decided, within a period of six weeks on receiving the order of this Tribunal.

8. Needless to say that the competent authority shall pass a reasoned and speaking order as per law.

9. With these observations, this Original Application is disposed of at the motion stage itself.

10. It has been made clear that this Tribunal has not touched the merit of the case.

11. The applicant is directed to make available the copy of the order of this Tribunal as well as the copy of the Original Application to the competent authority.

(Ramesh Singh Thakur) Judicial Member vk/-