Recently, a Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court bench comprising Justice Tashi Rabstan and Justice Rajesh Sekhri held that the rejection of a petitioner's compassionate appointment claim was arbitrary and unjustified who was denied appropriate compensation for around 16 years. The court directed a fresh speaking order adhering to the policy of 1998.
Brief Facts:
The Petitioner's mother worked for the Respondents and passed away in 2005. The Petitioner sought an appointment on compassionate grounds in 2005 with the Petitioner company, but no action was taken. In 2013, the Petitioner filed another application, which led to inquiries from Respondent No. 5. The Petitioner made representations in 2015, and the case was sent to the next Circle High Power Committee. The Petitioner's name was shown at Serial No. 2, but an affidavit was missing. The petitioner's claim was declined in 2017, and their challenge to this decision in OA No. 61/1098/2017 was dismissed in 2018. Thus, aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition before the High Court.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The Petitioner's counsel argued that the claim was declined based on instructions issued after the death of the Petitioner's mother, whereas the claim should have been considered under the policy instructions at the time of her death. The point system adopted by the Respondents is intended to prioritize cases, but the petitioner's case was not evaluated correctly. The financial condition of the family was not considered, resulting in an incorrect assessment of the petitioner's eligibility for appointment.
The impugned letter is liable to be set aside because the respondents rejected the claim after 12 years on flimsy grounds. The policy dated 27.06.2007 is arbitrary and irrational and loaded against dependents of the deceased employee. The learned counsel further argued that the policy in effect at the time of the bread earner's death must be applied. The Petitioner heavily relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhawani Prasad Sonkar v. Union of India and others reported at 2011 (4) SCC 209 and judgments of various high courts.
Contentions of the Respondent:
Learned AAG supported the Tribunal's judgment and cited various Supreme Court and High Court judgments in his favor, including Jagdish Prasad v. State of Bihar, 1996 (1) SCC 301, Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar, 2000 (7) SCC 192, State of J&K and others v. Sajad Ahmed Mir 2006 (5) SCC 766, and Mudasir Ahmad Kumar v. State of J&K and others reported at 2018 (2) JKJ[HC] 485.
Observations by the Court:
Upon review of the petition and attached records, the bench comprising Justice Tashi Rabstan and Justice Rajesh Sekhri, acknowledged that the Petitioner was dissatisfied with the decision of the Tribunal on 20.09.2018, which dismissed the Petitioner's original application for lack of merit. Additionally, the Petitioner was aggrieved by Order No. JP/Q-539/KW/24 dated 13.01.2017 passed by Respondent No. 5, which was deemed to be patently illegal, arbitrary, and unjustified, as the petitioner's request for compassionate appointment was denied. In the present case, the petitioner filed an application with the authority on the day he reached the age of majority, but the Administrative Tribunal rejected the Petitioner's claim solely based on the 2007 policy, which resulted in the Petitioner earning fewer than 55 points on the checklist and being rejected.
In the case at hand, the court noted that the petitioner's case should have been considered based on the policy of 1998, but the rejection order did not mention whether the case was evaluated under this policy. As a result, the court decided to entertain the writ petition and set aside the order passed by the Ld. Tribunal. The Respondent authority was directed to pass a fresh speaking order on the petitioner's application, strictly adhering to the policy of 1998 (compassionate appointment policy of 1998).
The decision of the Court:
The court ordered to compete the exercise within a period of two months from the copy of the order.
Case Title: Amit Malhotra v. The Chairman, Managing Director, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. & Others
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tashi Rabstan and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Sekhri
Case no.: WP(C) No. 1689/2019
Advocate for the Applicant: Achal Sharma
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Ravinder Gupta
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
