Allahabad High Court
Rajat Tiwari vs Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of ... on 15 May, 2024
Author: Rajan Roy
Bench: Rajan Roy
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:37161-DB
Court No. - 2
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3799 of 2024
Petitioner :- Rajat Tiwari
Respondent :- Union Of India Thru. Secy. Ministry Of Defense , New Delhi And Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Neeraj Chaurasiya,Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava,Ram Sewak
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.
Hon'ble Rajan Roy,J.
Hon'ble Om Prakash Shukla,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Varun Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4.
2. By means of instant writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment dated 18.03.2024 passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") in Original Application No.332/00286/2022.
3. The contention of the petitioner's counsel is that the father of the petitioner an erstwhile employee of the concerned respondents died on 29.02.2016. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment which was processed for appointment as Store Keeper and he was found fit for such appointment provisionally and the matter was referred to the higher authorities. Police verification report had also been received, however, before issuing the proposal for provisional appointment, the matter was referred to the headquarters of the Advance Weapons and Equipment India Limited. The headquarters informed that in view of letter dated 29.11.2021, both the process for such compassionate appointment may go on but appointment letter should not be issued. Vide order dated 07.06.2022, the petitioner was informed that on account of this the appointment order cannot be issued. The contention is that some new policy is proposed to be framed as is mentioned in the letter dated 29.11.2021, however, the new policy will not apply to those cases covered by the earlier policy such as the petitioner. He says that there are judgments on this issue.
4. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 says that the judgments are both ways.
5. However, we find that this aspect has not been considered by the Tribunal instead what it has done is to dispose of the petition with the observation that as and when any new recruitment rules take place in the company case of the petitioner should also be considered in that recruitment process as per rule.
6. In our opinion, the Tribunal has not considered the main issue before it, which was what was the earlier policy of compassionate appointment, has it been cancelled or superseded, if not, what effect the letter dated 29.11.2021 would have on the claim of petitioner to be considered for compassionate appointment under the earlier policy and whether if at all any new policy is framed, can it be applied retrospectively to the case of the petitioner. It should also have been considered that framing of such policy cannot be kept pending indefinitely and an issuance of appointment letter to the petitioner after he has been found fit could not have been deferred and kept pending indefinitely for years together as this would be against the very object of compassionate appointment.
7. Having lost sight of these relevant aspects, we are of the opinion that the order of the Tribunal deserves to be set aside and all these issues need to be thrashed out on merits by the Tribunal.
8. We, accordingly, set aside the impugned order dated 18.03.2024 passed by Tribunal and allow the writ petition with the direction to the Tribunal to reconsider the matter in the light of what has been stated hereinabove, keeping in mind the relevant law on this subject. Speedy disposal of the O.A. is also expected to say within the next four months.
[Om Prakash Shukla, J.] [Rajan Roy, J.]
Order Date :- 15.5.2024
Shubhankar
