Allahabad High Court
Km. Garima Kushwaha vs Union Of India And 3 Others on 1 March, 2024
Author: Vivek Kumar Birla
Bench: Vivek Kumar Birla
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:37267-DB
Court No. - 29
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1644 of 2024
Petitioner :- Km. Garima Kushwaha
Respondent :- Union Of India And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Puneet Bhadauria
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Rajesh Tripathi
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh,J.
1. Heard Sri Puneet Bhadauria, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.P. Singh assisted by Sri Rajesh Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.
3. The writ petitioner is the fourth respondent in Original Application No. 325 of 2020 filed by the respondent no. 4 herein before the Central Administrative Tribunal and after issuing notice the matter was taken up on 27.3.2023 and on that date counsel for the petitioner herein was not present even in the revised call and in view of the same the Tribunal vide order dated 12.4.2023 has passed the following order:-
"7. I have carefully gone through the record and rival contentions. As at the time of arguments, the applicant has not contested about other monitory benefits, which are given after the death of deceased employee to the family, so for my consideration, the only issue is who should be given preference for compassionate appointment between the applicant, who is the second wife of the deceased employee and the respondent no. 4, who is the daughter of first predeceased wife of the deceased employee. Either parties have not shown any case law where the issue has been decided. In this case, as the respondent no. 4 has not contested the case at all despite several opportunities, certainly on that ground also the claim of the applicant is strengthen. Otherwise also, as the second wife has two minor children to look after, her case is at stronger footing than the respondent no. 4. Also, in the absence of an specific case law, in the fitness of things, in my considered opinion, the case of the wife with two minor children is at stronger footing than any other successor of the deceased employee. In view of the O.M. dated 09.10.1998, referred to above, wherein the spouse is mentioned at the for the consideration of compassionate appointment, hence the applicant is at stronger footing.
8. Considering the above, I pass following order:-
"The OA is allowed and the order dated 14.10.2019 (Annexure-1) is set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the claim of the applicant for compassionate appointment by giving her preference in terms of O.M. dated 09.10.1998 in the next meeting after obtaining all relevant documents from her."
4. Present petition has been filed challenging the judgment and order dated 12.4.2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad in O.A. No. 325 of 2020, whereby the Tribunal has directed to grant compassionate appointment to the respondent no. 4 in an ex-parte manner as well as order dated 26.9.2023, whereby the Tribunal has rejected the review application of the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal has passed the impugned order ex-parte without giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the review application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 26.9.2023 holding that the scope of review is very limited.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed against the Scheme for compassionate appointment issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension (Department of Personnel and Training) dated 9.10.1998. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on Clause 13 of the Scheme, which reads as follows:-
"13. UNDERTAKING
A person appointed on compassionate grounds under the scheme should give an undertaking in writing (as in Annexure) that he/she will maintain properly the other family members who were dependent on the Government servant/member of the Armed Forces in question and in case it is proved subsequently (at any time) that the family members are being neglected or are not being maintained properly by him/her, his/her appointment may be terminated forthwith."
7. On the aforesaid clause, it was provided that a person appointed on compassionate grounds has to take care of the family members of the deceased. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the same was not taken into consideration by the Tribunal while passing the impugned order.
8. Sri S.P. Singh, learned A.S.G.I. submits that the authority should take an undertaking while considering the claim on compassionate ground and in the instant case also the authorities are bound for taking undertaking from the person claiming compassionate appointment.
9. In such view of the matter, notice to the respondent no. 4 is dispensed with as this Court is not passing any adverse order against the respondent no. 4.
10. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, present petition stands disposed of directing the respondents to consider the claim of the person claiming compassionate appointment pursuant to Clause 13 of the Scheme issued by Government of India, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pension (Department of Personnel and Training) dated 9.10.1998.
11. With the aforesaid observations, present petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 1.3.2024
Lalit Shukla
