Tirath Godar Chettri vs Union Of India And Ors.
2018 Latest Caselaw 1555 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                           Date of Order: March 07, 2018

+             W.P.(C) 2097/2018 & CMs 8684-85/2018
       TIRATH GODAR CHETTRI                          ..... Petitioner
                       Through: Mr. Sulaiman Mohd. Khan, Mr.
                       Tribikram Meelee and Mr. Mohit Prasad,
                       Advocates
                versus
       UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.                       .....Respondents
                       Through: Mr. Sanjeev Narula, CGSC and
                       Mr. Gaurav Rohilla, Advocate for respondents
                       No.1 to 3
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
                       ORDER

(ORAL)

1. Petitioner had sought compassionate appointment as a Plumber on death of his father on 5th March, 2016 and his application was recommended by Western Command vide Communication of 10th August, 2016 (Annexure-E). Thereafter, petitioner had sought Court of Inquiry Report vide letter of 4th February, 2017 (Annexure-I). Petitioner had also sought information under RTI on 16th December, 2016 regarding death of his father and on 11th August, 2017, vide Representation (Annexure-P Colly), petitioner had sought grant of compensation or appointment on compassionate grounds. The said Representation was forwarded by the concerned Administrative Officer, but according to petitioner's counsel, there is no response to the said Representation. It is further submitted that again on 28th August, 2017, another Representation

(Annexure-P colly.) was sent to third respondent and the fate of this Representation is also not known till date.

2. Vide Communication of 10th August, 2016 (Annexure-F), petitioner was permitted to retain the official accommodation for a period of 24 months. Petitioner's counsel submits that till petitioner's Representation of 28th August, 2017 (Annexure-P colly.) is decided, petitioner be permitted to retain the official accommodation. This prayer is declined for the reason that petitioner in the first instant has sought compensation and in the alternate, has sought appointment on compassionate grounds. Another reason for declining this prayer is that petitioner had not been diligently pursuing the Representation of April, 2016.

3. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of this petition with direction to third respondent to deal with petitioner's Representation of 28th August, 2017 (Annexure-P colly.) by passing a speaking order thereon within a period of six weeks and the fate of the Representation be made known to petitioner within a week thereafter, so that petitioner may avail of the remedies as available in law, if need be.

4. With aforesaid directions, this petition and the applications are disposed of.

Dasti.

(SUNIL GAUR) JUDGE MARCH 07, 2018 s