Rakesh Kumar and Anr v. UOI and Ors

ORDER %

09.10.2012

¶1The instant petition has been filed by the widow (petitioner no.2)' and son (petitioner no.l) of Shri Biram Singh who was working with the General Reserve Engineering Force as a Pioneer who expired on 28''" March, 2002 leaving behind his widow and five children. The children of the deceased employee were aged about 14 years, 6 years, 3 years, 2 years and 1 year at the time of his death.

¶2On 13'^ April, 2002, the respondents informed the petitioner no.2 that only a son could be granted the service on compassionate ground and that women could not get such service. It was further noted that-about 150 cases wherein the same issue was raised, were pending consideration with the authority. It was further informed by a letter Page No.l of 4 dated 13"" April, 2002 tinat tine appointment on compassionate grounds could be given only once the male dependent attains the age of 18 years.

¶3The petitioner was subsequently informed by a letter dated 28'" December, 2006 that as the application was not within the prescribed period of one year from the death of the deceased employee, therefore, name of no.2 could not be considered appointment. Representations by the petitioner met Y the same fate necessitatingthe filing of the presentwrit petition.

¶4Today, learned counsel for the respondents has placed before us a copy of communication bearing no.l2701/Comp Apptt/DGBR/08/EG2 dated 8'" October, 2012 wherein it is stated as follows:- "1. Competent authority has condoned the delay in view of DOP&T clarification F.No.14014/3/ 2011-Estt.(D) dated 26Jul 2012 and directed to place the case of the applicant in the merit list so as to be considered in order of merit, .'x,

¶2Hon'ble Court may be accordingly informed on next date of hearing.

¶3Necessary direction in this regard has been issued to GREF Centre." :>=•

¶5In view of the above, it would appear that the respondents are no more treating the case of the petitioner as delayed and the application is being considered by the respondents on its own merit. This issue Page No.2 of 4 i was brought to our notice on 29'^ August, 2012 when a similar information was placed before us and we had directed the respondents to place the result of the consideration before this court. We had directed as follows:- "1. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that no rejoinder is necessary.

¶2The instant petition seeks consideration of the for compassionate appointment by the respondents as next of kin of Late Shri Biram Singh. In the counter affidavit which has been filed, respondents have taken an objection that the writ petition is premature as government order denying appointment to the petitioner has yet been issued. On the contrary, it has been specifically averred in paras to that requisite documents/certificates received from the petitioner alongwith similar cases have been placed before the Board of Officers in the month of April, 2012 for ascertaining the eligibility criteria, the petitioner has secured 71 relative merit point out of 100 point scale and his recommended by the Board of Officers and approved by the competent authority in accordance with the instructions contained in the DOP&T Note dated 29th August, 2008 and Headquarters DGBR letter dated 15th January, 2009. The respondents have stated that all cases including the petitioner's are pending for obtaining sanction belated request from the competent authority and board proceedings in this regard have been submitted to the Secretary, BRDB as back as on 27th April, 2012. As per the counter affidavit, this consideration is still pending. •t

¶3A direction is, therefore, issued to respondents to place the result of the consideration of belated request appointment before this court on the next date of hearing. List on 9th October, 2012." . Page No.3 of 4 The same has not been done so far.

¶6In view of the above, we direct as follows:-

(i) The respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner no.l and pass an order on application of no.l appointment within a period of six weeks from today.

(ii) In case the petitioner no.l is still aggrieved by the order which is passed, it shall be open to the petitioner no.l to assail the same in accordance with law.

(iii) This writ petition is allowed in the above terms.

(iv) Dasti to the parties. GIT^A MITT/?Cj OCTOBER 09, 2012 aa A" G.P. MITTAL, J l/l/P iO No.2378/2012 Page No.4 of 4

r * + W.P.fC) No.2378/2012 IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELyi RAKESH KUMAR AND ANR Petitioners Through jvir. Arun Sul<hija, Adv. versus UOI AND ORS Respondent Through jVlr. Sunil Kunnar, Adv. for UOI CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL HON BLE MR. JUSTICE G.P. MITTAL, J