Rajasthan High Court
Union Of India vs Rajendra Prasad M S/O Shri Mangi ... on 20 October, 2021
Bench: Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, Farjand Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8877/2021
1. Union of India, through the General Manager, North
Western Railway, Head Quarter Officer, Near Jawahar
Circle, Jagatpura, Jaipur - 302017.
2. Divisional Railway Manager, North Western Railway, Power
House Road, Jaipur-302016.
3. Senior Devisional Personnel Officer, Office of Divisional
Railway Manager, North Western Railway, Power House
Road, Jaipur-302016.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Rajendra Prasad M S/o Shri Mangi Lal, aged about 55
Years, R/o Village Shalawas Kalan Kuty Bandikui, District-
Dausa, presently working as Lock Pilot Goods, Loco
Bandikui.
2. Vijendra Kumar S/o Rajendra Parasad, aged about 30
Years, R/o Village Shalawas Kalan Kutybandikui, District-
Dausa.
----Respondents
For Petitioners : Mr. P.C. Sharma Advocate.
For Respondents : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sharma Advocate.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Order
20/10/2021
Heard on admission.
Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-Union of
India has vehemently urged before this Court that the learned
Tribunal ought not to have interferred with the order rejecting
application for grant of voluntary retirement and claim of
(2 of 3) [CW-8877/2021]
compassionate appointment to son of the employee because as
per the applicable scheme, REB Letter No. 78/2006 dated
14.06.2006, even otherwise, the employee was not entitled to
have the claim.
Arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners are
more hypothetical because we find that the order challenged
before the Tribunal contained the reasoning other than that which
are now being advanced before us by learned counsel for the
petitioners-Union of India. The operative reason before the
Tribunal being that the application was belated, was met with
reasoning that there was delay in issuance of disability certificate.
That being factually correct, we do not think that the order of the
Tribunal suffer from any patent illegality or jurisdictional error
warranting interference by this Court in exercise of supervisory
jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in view of
the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of L.
Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India & Others, (1997) 3 SCC
261.
The argument of learned counsel for the petitioners-
Union of India that the policy that was available would not enure
to the benefit of the employee need not be considered by us at
this stage. All that the Tribunal has done is that it has set aside
the order dated 01.02.2018 and it has directed Union of India to
consider the application for voluntary retirement as also claim for
compassionate appointment in accordance with the scheme, REB
Letter No. 78/2006 dated 14.06.2006 and nothing more.
The apprehension of learned counsel for the
petitioners-Union of India that the direction is to the effect of
accepting the application, if we may so, is not found anywhere in
(3 of 3) [CW-8877/2021]
the order. It is always open for the petitioners-Union of India to
consider the application of the Respondent No. 1 in accordance
with the applicable circular operating in the field.
Subject to the aforesaid observations, we do not find
any merit in this petition and, therefore, the petition is dismissed.
(FARJAND ALI),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),J
MANOJ NARWANI /56
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
