Delhi High Court
Tara Singh And Anr. vs Union Of India And Ors. on 3 February, 2025
Author: C. Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar
$~72
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 11074/2019 & CM APPL. 31950/2020
TARA SINGH AND ANR. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. U. Srivastava with Mr.
Anoop Kumar and Mr. M.K. Gaur, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ...Respondents
Through: Ms. Monika Arora, CGSC with
Mr. Subhrodeep Saha and Mr. Prabhat
Kumar, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 03.02.2025
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. This writ petition challenges order dated 14 August 2019 passed
by the Central Administrative Tribunal1 in OA 2740/2016.
2. The petitioners are father and son, with Petitioner 2 being the
son of Petitioner 1.
3. Petitioner 1 was compulsorily retired from service on the
ground of vision malingering. As a result, Petitioner 2, his son, was
denied compassionate appointment on the ground that the applicable
policy did not permit compassionate appointment of dependence of
persons who were guilty of vision malingering.
4. The petitioners in their OA, challenge the decision to
compulsorily retired Petitioner 1 as well as deny compassionate
appointment to Petitioner 2.
5. The Tribunal has, unfortunately, only addressed the second
aspect of the matter and has not addressed the legal sustainability of
the decision to compulsorily retire Petitioner 1. This position has been
noticed by this Court in the very first order passed in the present case
on 13 November 2019 while issuing notice in the writ petition.
6. We have heard learned counsel for both sides.
7. Mr. Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioners, is agreeable to
disposal of this writ petition without interfering with the decision of
the Tribunal qua the aspect of compassionate appointment but with a
direction to re-consider the challenge against the compulsory
retirement of Petitioner 1.
8. Accordingly, while upholding the impugned judgement of the
Tribunal, to the extent it rejects the prayer for compassionate
appointment of Petitioner 2, The challenge by Petitioner 1 to his
compulsorily retirement is remitted to the Tribunal for consideration
and decision.
9. As the issue is of considerable vintage, both parties are directed
to appear before the Tribunal on 12 February 2025.
"the Tribunal" hereinafter
10. The Tribunal is requested not to adjourn the matter on the said
date. Learned counsel for the parties also assure that no adjournment
would be sought on that day.
11. The Tribunal is also requested to take the decision in the matter
as expeditiously as possible thereafter and, if possible, within a period
of four weeks.
12. Needless to say, the rights of the parties, should they choose to
remain aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, stand reserved.
13. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
AJAY DIGPAUL, J.
FEBRUARY 3, 2025
an
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
