Smt. Gomti Devi vs Central Administrative Tribunal ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 28 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 42
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 22092 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Smt. Gomti Devi
 
Respondent :- Central Administrative Tribunal Allahabad And 4 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Bhole Ram
 
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Jai Krishna Narain Sharma
 

 
Hon'ble Suneet Kumar,J.

Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

Husband of the petitioner, namely, Sri Suresh Chandra Yadav, was an employee with the Railway Department. It appears that the employee fell ill and was admitted for treatment at the Kendriya Chikitasalay Uttar Madhya Railway, Allahabad on 24.01.2014. It is alleged that the employee was suffering from mental illness. Petitioner approached the railway authorities requesting to appoint their son, namely, Som Prakash on compassionate ground in place of her husband. The application was rejected by the fifth respondent, Assistant Executive Officer/Chief/III North Central Railway Allahabad (Prayagraj), vide order dated 13.06.2019. Aggrieved, petitioner carried the order and challenged it before the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short 'Tribunal') by filing Original Application bearing Application No. 913 of 2019. Learned Tribunal by the impugned order dated 05.01.2022, rejected the application. Hence, the instant petition is directed against the afore-noted order.

On specific query, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to show any illegality, infirmity, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order. It is noted in the impugned order that LARSGESS Scheme to grant benefit under which petitioner seeks compassionate appointment has since been done away by the railway authorities; further, the Scheme fails the test of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India for appointment made thereunder has been held to be backdoor appointment. Learned counsel appearing for the Railway Department has placed reliance on the decision of this Court rendered in Dhanpal and another v. Union of India and 2 others (Writ-A No. 16360 of 2022) decided on 12.10.2022, and three Judge Bench of Supreme Court in Manjit v. Union of India, 2021 0 Supreme (SC) 44. In para-6 of the judgment, Supreme Court held as follows:

"Noticing the above decision, this Court, in its order dated 6 March 2019, specifically observed that since the Scheme stands terminated and is no longer in existence, nothing further need be done in the matter. The Scheme provided for an avenue of a back door entry into the service of the railways. This would be fundamentally at odds with Article 16 of the Constitution. The Union government has with justification discontinued the scheme. The petitioners can claim neither a vested right nor a legitimate expectation under such a Scheme. All claims based on the Scheme must now be closed."

In view thereof, this Court declines to entertain the writ petition as the reliefs claimed by the petitioner would only enable the petitioner to seek backdoor entry contrary to the orders of this Court, as well as, Supreme Court.

The writ petition being devoid of merit, is accordingly, dismissed.

Order Date :- 2.1.2023

Mukesh Kr.