Delhi High Court
Bhaiya Lal & Anr. vs The Administrative Civil Judge & ... on 13 August, 2014
$-1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
DECIDED ON : 13th AUGUST, 2014
+ LPA 486/2014
BHAIYA LAL & ANR. ....Appellants
Through : Mr.V.N.Jha, Advocate.
versus
THE ADMINISTRATIVE CIVIL JUDGE & ANR....Respondents
Through : None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG
S.P.Garg, J. (Oral)
CM No.11776/2014 (Exemption)
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
The application stands disposed of.
CM Nos.11777-11778/2014
For the reasons mentioned in the applications, the delay in filing
and re-filing the present appeal is condoned.
The applications stand disposed of.
LPA 486/2014
1. In this intra - Court appeal, the challenge is to the order dated
08.10.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP (C) No.5139/2013
by which the writ petition filed by the Appellants was dismissed.
2. The Appellants were aggrieved in the said writ petition by
orders dated 25.02.2012 and 28.09.2012 passed by the Respondents,
whereby application for seeking appointment as chowkidar on
compassionate ground for Appellant No.2 was dismissed.
3. Admittedly, Pyarelal (since deceased) was in service as
chowkidar with the Respondents. He died in a road accident on
22.09.2009. The Appellants applied for compassionate appointment vide
application dated 21.04.2010. It was contended that deceased - Pyarelal
was the sole bread earner of the family comprising of his old parents, two
school going minor sisters (Rakhi & Shama @ Rama) and brother.
Appellant No.2 alone was dependant upon deceased - Pyarelal as his
father - Bhaiya Lal (Appellant No.1), aged 60 years, had no source of
income. Being dependant family member in view of O.M. dated
16.01.2013 rejection of his application by the Respondents was not
proper. Counsel urged that omission to record him as 'dependant' in the
office record was not enough to reject his claim.
4. Admitted position is that Pyarelal (since deceased) was
bachelor at the time of his death. It is not denied that in the service records
none of the Appellants was shown as 'dependant'. The learned Single
Judge specifically noted that pre-condition for grant of compassionate
appointment was that the person seeking it must be a family member or
dependant. Since both these requirements did not exist, no relief could be
granted to the Appellants. The Appellants have not placed on record any
document to infer that any of them was shown as 'dependant' in the
service record of the deceased. Ration-card, the copy of which has been
placed on record, reveals that deceased - Pyarelal resided in a joint family
consisting of his father Appellant No.1 - Bhaiya Lal, mother - Premwati,
brother - Ramesh and sisters - Rakhi and Shama @ Rama. In the ration-
card, Abhishek has been shown to be grandson of the Appellant No.1 -
Bhaiya Lal. Apparently, Appellant No.2 alone was not the other sibling of
the deceased to claim employment on compassionate ground. Since
Appellant No.2 - Pankaj Kumar and deceased - Pyarelal were residing in
a joint family with Appellant No.1 - Bhaiya Lal apparently, he (Pankaj
Kumar) was not 'dependant' and family member of the deceased -
Pyarelal. The Appellants did not opt to appear before the learned Single
Judge to urge what legal right they have got to seek appointment and the
impugned order was passed ex-parte. We find no infirmity with the orders
passed by learned Single Judge as well as by the Respondents.
Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.
(S.P.GARG)
JUDGE
(REVA KHETRAPAL)
JUDGE
AUGUST 13, 2014
tr
