Madhya Pradesh High Court
Santosh Kumar Yadav vs Union Of India Judgement Given By: ... on 12 December, 2013
W.P.No.18266/2011
Santosh Kumar Yadav Vs. The Union of India & Ors.
12/12/2013
Ku. Savita Choudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri S.A.Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the respondents.
Challenging the order Annexure-P1 dated 11.10.2011 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal rejecting a claim for compassionate appointment on the ground of delay, this writ petition is filed.
It is seen that the petitioner's father Late Shri Ramswaroop Yadav was working in the respondent's department as a Darban and while in service, he died in harness on 13.11.2005. Based on certain schemes and criteria laid down for grant of compassionate appointment, petitioner submitted an application, various correspondence took place and finally, the application was rejected vide order dated 22.11.2009. Challenging this rejection, an application was filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act i.e. O.A.No.380/2011 and on the ground that the claim is filed after a period of more than 3 years of it's rejection and 6 years after death of his father, the application has been dismissed by the Tribunal.
It is the case of the petitioner that since 2006, petitioner was under treatment before the neuropsychiatric at Bhopal and vide Annexure-P18, certain documents are filed showing the aforesaid fact and, therefore, the claim could not be filed on time. It is said that the rejection of the application for compassionate appointment and without adverting to consider the merit of the claim, matter was not properly considered. Based on these consideration, this petition has been filed.
Respondents have filed the reply and apart from contending that the claim was barred by time, respondents have indicated as to how and in what basis the merit criteria was considered and it is pointed out in Para-3.5 of the return that the claim of the petitioner was considered on three occasions in the year 2006, 2007 and 2008 and on all these W.P.No.18266/2011 Santosh Kumar Yadav Vs. The Union of India & Ors.
occasions, petitioner did not come within the merit criteria and his claim for compassionate appointment was rejected. It is, therefore, stated that once the claim has been rejected in three consecutive years, compassionate appointment cannot be granted to the petitioner.
Petitioner has filed a circular dated 5th of May, 2003 passed by the Department of Personnel & Training to say that the claim has not been considered properly as per the scheme.
Be it as it may be, from the documents available on record, it is seen that the petitioner has filed the application for compassionate appointment before the tribunal for the first time and even though, there was some delay in filing the application and the application for condonation of delay Annexure-P16 before the Tribunal, petitioner has given certain reasons as to why the application could not be filed on time. All these reasons have not been considered properly and only on the ground that the application is barred by time, the same is rejected. It is seen that the consideration on merit with regard to the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was called for and this having not been done, we remand the matter back to the Tribunal to consider and decide the claim in accordance with law. The Tribunal after evaluating the circumstances and the merits of the claim and policies shall determine the question of grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioner afresh.
With the aforesaid, the petition stands disposed of. Certified Copy as per rules.
(Rajendra Menon) (Anil Sharma)
Judge Judge
nd