Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur

Suresh Singh vs U O I And Anr on 19 September, 2017

Author: Chief Justice

Bench: Chief Justice

 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT
                      JAIPUR
              D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14049 / 2017
Suresh Singh S/o Late Shri Shankar Singh, by Caste Kumawat,
Aged About 35 Years, Resident of 23A Ram Nagar H, Extension
Behind Jyoti Rao Phule College, Swej Farm, Sodala, Jaipur.
                                                             ----Petitioner
                                  Versus
1. Union of India, Through the Registrar General (Census), India,
Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs, 2/A, Man Singh
Road, New Delhi.

2. Director of Census Operation, Census Directorate, 6B, Jhalana
Doongri, Jaipur.
                                                        ----Respondents

_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. PN Jatti & Mr. B.K.Jatti. _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI Order 19/09/2017 (1) The writ-petitioner's father died in harness on 08.07.2009. He was 58 years and 4 months old when he died. The petitioner was 32 years of age when his father died and could not get employment on his merit. By the time his father died the writ-petitioner had become overage for public employment. Declining prayer for being granted appointment on compassionate basis, the Central Administrative Tribunal has noted that on the death of petitioner's father terminal benefits in the sum of ₹13,79,363/- were paid. Family pension in sum of ₹10,795 + DA was sanctioned. The family owns a residential property worth ₹10,00,000/-. One son was employed in a private company.

(2 of 2) [CW-14049/2017] (2) Suffice it to state that compassionate appointment is given to one member of the family for the family to overcome sudden financial stress. It is not a source of alternative employment.

(3) Considering the terminal benefits paid, the family pension sanctioned and that the family owns a residential house, it is not a case where decision not to grant appointment on compassionate appointment can be faulted.

(4)           The writ petition is dismissed.




(DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI),J.                   (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG),C.J.

N.Gandhi/40