Zahir Bux vs Union Of India on 2 September, 2022

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Chattisgarh High Court

Zahir Bux vs Union Of India on 2 September, 2022

Bench: Arup Kumar Goswami

                                    1


                                                                    NAFR
          HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                        WPS No. 1413 of 2020

Zahir Bux S/o. Late Nabi Bux, Aged About 32 Years R/o. House No.

477/4, Bunglaw Yard, S.E.C.Railway, Railway Colony, District Bilaspur

Chhattisgarh.


                                                            ---- Petitioner


                                 Versus


1. Union Of India Through Ministry Of Railway, Rail Bhawan-1, Raisina

   Road, New Delhi


2. General Manager, S.E.C. Railway, Bilaspur Zone, Headquarter

   Office, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh


3. Chief Personnel Officer, S.E.C. Railway, Bilaspur Zone, Headquarter

   Office, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.


4. Divisional Personnel Officer, S.E.C. Railway, Bilaspur Zone,

   Headquater Office, Bilaspur District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.


                                                        ---- Respondents

(Cause Title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Anchal Kumar Matre, Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Ramakant Mishra, Assistant Solicitor General alongwith Mr. Tushar Dhar Diwan, Central Govt.

Counsel.

Hon'ble Mr. Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Deepak Kumar Tiwari, Judge Judgment on Board 02/09/2022 Heard Mr. Anchal Kumar Matre, learned counsel, appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. Ramakant Mishra, learned Assistant Solicitor General as well as Mr. Tushar Dhar Diwan, learned Central Government counsel, appearing for the respondents.

2. The writ petition is filed assailing the order dated 16.07.2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Circuit Sitting, Bilaspur (for short, the Tribunal) in Original Application No. 203/ 00567/2019 (for short, the OA), whereby the OA by which the petitioner had assailed denial of compassionate appointment, was rejected.

3. Copy of the OA is not annexed with the writ petition. However, from the judgment of the Tribunal, it appears that the father of the petitioner was not fit to work as Diesel Assistant in Category Aye/One but as per visual standard, he was fit in category Aye/One and as such was decategorised and declared fit only for sedentary job in category Aye/One or below permanently. Accordingly, on 26.10.1999, the petitioner's father was offered an alternative post of Junior Clerk. However, the petitioner's father, on the very same day, by letter dated 26.10.1999, submitted that he was not in a position to serve in any alternative job and he may be retired on medical grounds. Accordingly, 3 by order dated 24.12.1999, the father of the petitioner was retired voluntarily w.e.f 26.10.1999. After such retirement, an application dated 13.03.2000 was submitted by him for grant of compassionate appointment to his wife i.e. the petitioner's mother. The petitioner's father expired on 12.10.2000. Thereafter, the petitioner's mother submitted an application on 03.01.2001 for grant of compassionate appointment. However, the same was rejected by order dated 15.05.2001. Various representations for her appointment or for her son i.e. the petitioner, on compassionate grounds were made. The petitioner's mother continued to file representations which were rejected. Such last representation was rejected on 21.04.2011 on the ground that claim for compassionate appointment does not arise after retirement had taken place.

4. The petitioner, in the year 2019 i.e. after 19 years of demise of his father, filed an application before the Tribunal for compassionate appointment. At the time of filing of the application before the Tribunal, the petitioner was aged about 32 years and therefore, at the time of death of his father, the petitioner was a minor aged about 14 years.

5. As noticed earlier, first rejection was way back on 15.05.2001 and the last one on 21.04.2011 and approach to the Tribunal was made in the year 2019. There is a gross delay in approaching the Court against rejection of the prayer made for compassionate appointment. That apart, the Tribunal had also taken note of Railway Board's letter No. E(NG)/II/95/RC-1/94, dated 18.01.2000 (RBE No. 8/2000), which provides that in case of medical decategorization i.e. those cases in 4 which an employee becomes medically unfit for the post held at present but is fit to perform the duties of an alternative suitable post in lower medical category, the request for appointment on compassionate ground to an eligible ward will not be admissible, even if the employee chooses to retire voluntarily on his being declared medically decategorised. Such an employee may then either be continued in a supernumerary post or allowed to retire voluntarily if he so desires but without extending the benefit of appointment on compassionate grounds to a ward.

6. The learned Tribunal noted that since the father of the petitioner, who was fit for sedentary job and was also found suitable for the post of Junior Clerk, did not accept the alternative job and chose to take voluntary retirement, therefore, his wife/ward was clearly not entitled for compassionate appointment.

7. We see no reason to take a view other than the view taken by the learned Tribunal.

8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No cost.

                      Sd/-                                       Sd/-
              (Arup Kumar Goswami)                      (Deepak Kumar Tiwari)
                  CHIEF JUSTICE                               JUDGE




Amit

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Chattisgarh High Court