Union Of India & Others vs Smt.Rajni Arora & Another
2010 Latest Caselaw 2662 Del

*              IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                             W.P.(C) No.165/2009
%
                          Date of Decision: 19.05.2010

Union of India & Others                                         .... Petitioners
                   Through Mr.R.V.Sinha, Advocate.

                                    Versus

Smt.Rajni Arora & Another                                    .... Respondents
                  Through       Mr.V.P.S.Tyagi, Advocate.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG

1.    Whether reporters of Local papers may be                  YES
      allowed to see the judgment?
2.    To be referred to the reporter or not?                     NO
3.    Whether the judgment should be reported                    NO
      in the Digest?



ANIL KUMAR, J.

*

The petitioners, Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of

Defence & others have challenged the order dated 28th April, 2008

passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New

Delhi in O.A.No.334 of 2008, titled as „Smt.Rajni Arora and another v.

Union of India & others‟, allowing original application of the

respondents for compassionate appointment consequent upon

compliance of the Tribunal‟s direction in O.A.No.2512 of 2006 dated

11th May, 2007 and directing the petitioner to reconsider the claim of

the respondents in the light of the observations made by the Tribunal

for relaxation and to process the case of the respondents for

compassionate appointment.

This is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that

late Narender Kumar Ex LDC, husband of respondent No.1 had died in

harness and her request for compassionate appointment was

considered by Board duly constituted by MES. After considering all the

relevant parameters for compassionate appointment, the Board had

recommended for compassionate appointment for the post of Store

Keeper Grade-II, however, the request for compassionate appointment

for Group C post of LDC was declined. After the compassionate

appointment to the post of Store Keeper, Grade-II was recommended, a

vacancy has been sanctioned by Central Command at Lucknow,

however, age relaxation was not granted leading to filing of petition

being O.A.No.2512 of 2006 where an order dated 11th May, 2007 was

passed directing the petitioners to finalize the matter relating to the age

relaxation and to appoint respondent No.2 on compassionate ground in

terms of approval for the job of Store Keeper.

The order dated 11th May, 2007 passed by the Tribunal in O.A.

No.2512 of 2006 was not challenged by the petitioners and it had

become final. Consequent to decision of the Tribunal dated 11th May,

2007, the petitioners were required to consider the case of the petitioner

for compassionate appointment to the post of Store Keeper Grade-II as

was recommended earlier after granting the age relaxation. However,

the petitioners did not consider the case of the respondents of age

relaxation rather declined the age relaxation on the ground that all the

cases prior to December 2000 are to be closed and disposed of and

since the cases of the respondents belonged to pre December, 2000 and

such cases were closed and disposed of, therefore, without considering

the case of the respondents in terms of the directions of the Tribunal

dated 11th May, 2007 passed an order dated 18th October, 2007

declining to consider the case of the respondents for age relaxation. The

order passed by the petitioners is as under:-

"SPEAKING ORDER IN COMPLIANCE OF ORDER DATED 11TH MAY, 2007 PASSED BY HON'BLE CAT (PB) NEW DELHI IN O.A. No.2512 of 2006: SMT. RAJNI & ANOTHER VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

1. Reference Hon‟ble CAT (PB) New Delhi Order dated 11th May, 2007 passed in O.A.No.2512, Smt. Rajni & Another and your representation dated 12th September, 2007.

2. Your case has been considered as per order of Hon‟ble CAT dated 11th May, 2007 passed in O.A.No.2512 of 2006 filed by you. The Hon‟ble CAT vide Para 4 of their order has directed as under;-

"The respondents are, therefore, directed to finalize the matter relating to age relaxation and take further action with regard to the request of Applicant No.2 for appointment on compassionate grounds in terms of the approval for the job of Store Keeper as mentioned in the reply filed by them. The decision taken be informed to the applicants within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs."

3. Your case for age relaxation was considered by the appropriate authority and was not approved.

4. It is stated that the case for obtaining age relaxation had earlier been taken up with E-in-C Branch by CE Central Command in Feb 05. The E-in-C Branch, however, returned the case stating that all cases prior to December 2000 are to be closed and disposed of. Since your case belongs to Pre December, 2000 period, the same accordingly, is closed and disposed of.

5. In this connections, it is further pointed out that your father died on 18th January, 1976 but you submitted documents for your compassionate appointment only on 01st January, 1998, i.e. after 22 years from the death of your father, which shows that there was no immediate crisis or financial destitution which are valid grounds for compassionate appoint as highlighted by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in various judgments. Also as per the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, compassionate appointment is not a vested right to be exercised any time in future.

6. In view of the above, you cannot be issued the appointment on compassionate grounds in accordance with the approval contained in this HQ letter No.813041/386/EIC(1) dated 12 September, 2003.

th

7. This letter is issued in compliance of Hon‟ble CAT (PB)New Delhi order dated 16th May, 2007 in O.A.No.2512 of 2006 filed by your.

(R.K.Sharma, IDSE) SE Dir (Pres & Legal) For Chief Engineer"

Aggrieved by the order dated 18th October, 2007, the

respondents had filed an Original Application No.334 of 2008,

which has been allowed by the Tribunal. While allowing the

original application, the Tribunal also relied on the decision of the

Apex Court in Bhiku Bai Patel v. State of Gujarat, 2008 (4) SCALE

278; Abhishek Kumar v. State of Haryana & others, (2007) 2 SCC

(L & S) 308 & Mukesh Kumar v. Union of India & others, 2007

(10) SCALE 543. The Tribunal also noticed that the Board of

Officers who is a specialist body had considered the claim for

compassionate appointment of the respondents and had

recommended after considering all the relevant factors for

compassionate appointment to the post of Store Keeper Grade-II.

However, age relaxation had to be granted to the respondents. It

was also noticed that after due consideration of the pleas and

contentions of the petitioner in the earlier petition filed by the

respondents being O.A.No.2512 of 2006 by order dated 11th May,

2007, the petitioners were directed to consider the age relaxation

before granting compassionate appointment. The Tribunal also

noted that a vacancy had been sanctioned by the Central

Command Lucknow and in the circumstances, merely on the

ground that all cases prior to December 2000 are to be closed, the

order passed by the Tribunal dated 11th May, 2007 could not be

negated. Since the expert body of the petitioners recommended

compassionate appointment, the petitioners could not contend all

other reasons stipulated in the order dated 18th October,, 2007.

It cannot be disputed by the petitioners that if all the cases

prior to December 2000 were to be closed and not to be considered

for age relaxation, the pleas should have been taken in

O.A.No.2512 of 2006. Such plea was not taken and therefore, the

Tribunal had given specific direction to consider the age relaxation

of the respondents by the petitioners which has not been done and

the order dated 18th October, 2007 has been passed mechanically.

The order passed by the Tribunal in the earlier original application

which was not challenged could not be set aside by the petitioners

by a subsequent order nor the recommendation of their expert

body could be countered later on, on the grounds taken in the

order dated 18th October, 2007.

In the circumstances, there is no illegality in the order of the

Tribunal setting aside the order dated 18th October, 2007 declining

to consider the question of age relaxation of the respondents

pursuant to order dated 11th May, 2007 in O.A.No.2512 of 2006

solely on the ground that the case prior to December 2000 is not to

be considered. In any case, the petitioners have been directed to

reconsider the case of the respondent for the age relaxation in view

of the observations made by the Tribunal.

In the totality of the facts and circumstances, therefore, learned

counsel for the petitioners, Union of India & others, have failed to make

out any such illegality, irregularity and perversity in the order of the

Tribunal dated 28th April, 2008 which would require any interference by

this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India. The writ petition in the facts and circumstances

of the case, is without any merit, and it is therefore, dismissed.

ANIL KUMAR, J.

MAY 19, 2010                                    MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
„VK‟