Delhi High Court
Mona (Smt.) And Anr. vs Municipal Corporation Of Delhi ... on 11 July, 1996
Equivalent citations: (1998) IIILLJ 1300 Del
Bench: D Gupta, A Siddiqui
ORDER
1. Yet another opportunity is sought by learned counsel for the respondent to file reply. We are not inclined to grant any further adjournment. Last opportunity was allowed to the respondent on November 15, 1995 to file reply within two weeks. Reply was not filed. On February 27, 1996 further indulgence was shown when four weeks further time was allowed, subject to payment of Rs. 1,000 as costs. Learned counsel for the respondent states that the order was communicated to the respondent but he has not received any response from respondents. Costs have also not been paid. In these circumstances we are proceeding on the basis of the averments made in the petition which. are duly supported by the petitioner on his own affidavit.
2. Petitioner's father was gainfully emploved as regular Beldar (Safai Karrnachari) with the respondent in Anti Malaria Department. Me died in harness on June 30, 1993. Had he not expired he was to remain with the respondent till 2001 A.D. A request was made by the petitioner for being given employment in place of his father on compassionate grounds, in accordance with the policy being followed by the respondents in that behalf Pending decision on the petitioners application, through order dated September 29, 1993 (Annexure P-3. petitioner was allowed to w ork as a substitute Safai Karamchari in place of his father. The order reads as under :
"MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI C.S.E. (DEP'IT) WEST ZONE
OFFICE ORDER
No. 127 Date 29.9.93.
With the prior approval of A.D.C (W) dated 17.9.1993. Shri Katar Singh is hereby allowed to work as a substitute S.K. in place of his deceased father Shri Mahindar S/o Fakroo S.K. C. No. 26 till the case of his regular S.K. is decided in place of his father.
Sd/- Illegible
S.S. West Zone. Copy to all concerned.
3. Petitioner continued to work as a Safai Karmachari in place of his deceased father. On October 22, 1994 order annexure P-4 was served upon him conveying the decision of respondents, rejecting the petitioner's application on the ground that petitioner's case is not covered by the policy, the order dated October 27, 1994 (Annexure P-4) which under challenge reads :
"MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI"
Sr.No.1245
Dated 27.10.94.
Shri Katar Singh, S/o Mahinder Singh.
In connection with your application for corn-
passionate appointment you are informed that
your case has been considered by the Office
and it is found that your "appointment is not
covered" under policy for compassionate
appointment. It is, therefore, regretted that your
request cannot be accepted.
Sd/- Ramesh Avasthi.
Officer.
C.S.E.
4. Petitioner has placed reliance upon the policy copy of which is annexure P-2, which according to the petitioner is followed by the respondents and that his case is fully covered. Despite opportunities the respondents have failed to file any reply or to state the precise ground as to why petitioner's case is not covered under the policy. Number of opportunities were affojoinded to the respondents to justify the impugned order but the respondents have failed to avail the opportunity. As per the policy, compassionate appointment is to be given to son. daughter or near relative of a Government servant, who dies in harness including death by suicide, leaving his family in immediate need of assistance, when there is no other earning member in the family.
5. In case the petitioner's case was found to be prima facie valid for being given an appointment on compassionate grounds for which an order was made on September 29, 1993. asking him to work as Safai Karamachari in place of his father, in which capacity he continued to work for more than one year, in the absence of any valid ground w e arc unable (sic) to sustain the impugned order. It was but necessary for the respondents to have supported ihe impugned order even by production of relevant record that there has been due consideration to the petitioner's application in the light of the policy in force. Non filing of reply necessarily will lead us to draw an interference against the respondents.
6. Accordingly, we quash the impugned order 5(Annexure P-43) and allow the writ petition. Respondents are directed to give appointment to the petitioner in place of his deceased father as a permanent regular Beldar as (Safai Karamchari) forthwith. The petitioner will report to the 3rd respondent within a period of two weeks from today with copy a of this order who will assign suitable work to the petitioner within the same period.
