Patna High Court - Orders
Union Of India & Ors vs Md.Islam & Anr on 23 July, 2010
Author: Shiva Kirti Singh
Bench: Shiva Kirti Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.1014 of 2010
1. UNION OF INDIA THRU THE CHAIRMAN, RAILWAY BOARD,
RAIL BHAWAN, NEW DELHI.
2. THE GENERAL MANAGER, E.C. RAILWAY, HAJIPUR
3. THE DIVISIONAL RAILWAY MANAGER, E.C. RAILWAY,
SAMASTIPUR
4. THE D.R.M. (p), E.C. RAILWAY, SAMASTIPUR
5. DIVISIONAL COMMERCIAL MANAGER, E.C. RAILWAY,
SAMASTIPUR..............................................PETITIONERS
Versus
1. MD.ISLAM, S/O NOOR MOHAMAD, EX DRIVER A, UNDER
OFFICE OF D.T.T.I.E.C RAILWAY, NARKATIAGANJ
2. AFTAB ANSARI, S/O MD ISLAM-1, EX-PASSENGER DRIVER
HARDASIA CHANK, NARKATIAGANJ, DIST-WEST
CHAMPARAN, BIHAR..................................RESPONDENTS
-----------
For petitioners:- Mr. D.K. Sinha, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Anil Singh, Advocate
For Respondents:- Mr. M.P. Dixit, Advocate
----------
07. 23-07-2010Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents.
2. This writ petition has been preferred by Union of India and the officials of Eastern Central Railways at Hajipur & Samastipur to challenge order of Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna dated 16th July 2009 whereby O.A. No. 365/2006 preferred by the respondent was allowed and the petitioners were directed to once again consider the claim of respondent no.2 for compassionate appointment on the ground that his father, respondent no.1 had been declared medically unfit and was retired from -2- service under the Railways with effect from 5.7.1988.
3. On behalf of the petitioners it has been submitted that the aforesaid direction by the learned Tribunal is without considering the detailed reasons for rejecting the claim of the respondent no.2 through speaking order dated 17.10.2005 (Annexure-1).
4. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the speaking order contained in Annexure-1 does not take into consideration the scheme for compassionate appointment in a proper manner and therefore the direction of the Tribunal for reconsidering the claim is proper and requires no interference.
5. We have perused the speaking order passed by the Chairman, Railway Board contained in Annexure-1 as well as judgment and order of the learned Tribunal under challenge. The speaking order was passed by the Chairman, Railway Board pursuant to directives of the learned Tribunal, Patna Bench in their order dated 20th October 2004 in O.A. No. 749 of 2004. The first three paragraphs of the speaking order refer to the earlier directives of the learned Tribunal, the general scheme of appointment on compassionate ground -3- which is to tide over the situation caused by the loss of the bread-winner and indicates that the scheme for such appointment is normally required to be kept open for a period of five years. Thereafter, the Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Umesh Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana & Ors reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138 has been discussed for underscoring the principle that compassionate appointment cannot be granted after a lapse of reasonable period as specified in the Rules and consideration for such employment is not a vested right available at any time in future.
6. In paragraph-4 of the speaking order the case of the respondents has been discussed along with relevant dates as to when respondent no.1 was retired on the ground of medical unfitness and when he sought for compassionate appointment of his second son, respondent no.2. This was after a period of five years and therefore after considering the representation the General Manager concerned sent it to Board for granting relaxation of time limit. The Board did not approve the proposal because the first son of respondent no.1 had already got appointment in the Railways through normal recruitment. The Board did not agree to proposal of relaxation -4- of the time limit for compassionate appointment of respondent no.2, the second son of respondent no.1.
7. In paragraph-5 of the speaking order, it has been mentioned that on the date of the order the claim was more than 17 years old, the daughter of the retired employee was already married and the first son was in Railway employment and respondent no.2, second son was already 32 years old and not a minor requiring maintenance. It was held that the usual liabilities associated with compassionate appointment are children's education or daughters' marriage and those factors were found absent in the present case. In the last paragraph, in view of the facts and the law laid down by the Apex Court, the claim was rejected by the Chairman, Railway Board.
8. On going through the impugned order of the learned Tribunal, we find that there was a misconception that the claim of the respondents had been rejected as not maintainable. That is not the reason given in the speaking order. It is further found that the reasons given in the speaking order are good reasons and they have not been demolished either before the Tribunal or before this Court.
9. As a result, we find sufficient merit in this -5- petition. It is allowed and the impugned order of the learned Tribunal is set aside. There shall be no order as to costs.
( Shiva Kirti Singh, J. ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J.) perwez