Rajasthan High Court
Union Of India vs Manish Yogi S/O Late Shri ... on 18 February, 2022
Bench: Pankaj Bhandari, Anoop Kumar Dhand
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2276/2022
1. Union Of India, Through Its General Manager, North
Western Railway, Head Quarters, Jawahar Circle,
Jagatpura, Jaipur (302017)
2. Divisional Railway Manager, North Western Railway,
Jawahar Circle, Jagatpura, Jaipur (302017) (Raj.)
----Petitioners/Non-Applicant
Versus
Manish Yogi S/o Late Shri Nemichand, Aged About 18 Years,
Resident Of Village Kundli, Post Katrathal, Tehsil And District
Sikar (Raj.) For Compassionate Appointment, Father Was
Working On The Post Of Track- Maintainer- Ii
----Respondent-Applicant
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shailesh Prakash Sharma
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Naved Rafiq
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ BHANDARI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND
Judgment
18/02/2022
1. Petitioner has preferred this civil writ petition aggrieved with
the order dated 02.12.2021 passed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short 'the learned Tribunal') in
OA No. 604/2018, whereby the Original Application of the
respondent-applicant was allowed and the order dated 16.08.2018
passed by the petitioners was quashed and the petitioners were
directed to consider the case of the applicant-respondent for
compassionate appointment in light of RBE circular dated
30.12.2019, if he is otherwise found fit for appointment on
compassionate grounds.
(2 of 3) [CW-2276/2022]
2. It is contended by learned counsel appearing for the
petitioners that the RBE circular dated 30.12.2019 could not be
given a retrospective effect. It is also contended that order dated
16.08.2018 was passed in furtherance of the RBE circular dated
21.03.2018. It is also contended that if the RBE circular dated
30.12.2019 was given retrospective effect then RBE circular dated
21.03.2018 should also be given retrospective effect and in that
case the respondent-applicant was not entitled for compassionate
appointment as he was son of second wife of the deceased-
railway employee.
3. It is contended by counsel for the respondent-applicant that
the railway employee died on 16.03.2016 and an application for
compassionate appointment was filed on 12.04.2016. It is
contended that initially vide letter dated 09.06.2017, the prayer
for compassionate appointment was declined in view of circular
RBE No. 01/1992 dated 02.01.1992. It is also contended by
counsel for the respondent-applicant that RBE circular No.
01/1992 dated 02.01.1992 was challenged before the High Court
of Calcutta by Namita Buldar and Anr. and the Calcutta High Court
quashed the RBE circular. It is also contended that the similar view
was taken by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay and
ultimately the Hon'ble Apex Court has upheld these judgments
and orders passed by the Bombay High Court.
4. We have considered the contentions.
5. It is evident that RBE circular No. 01/1992 dated
02.01.1992 which was made a basis for rejection of the prayer for
compassionate appointment was struck down by the Calcutta High
Court and at the relevant time when the application for
(3 of 3) [CW-2276/2022]
compassionate appointment was rejected the circular was not in
force. Admittedly, the subsequent circular dated 21.03.2018
cannot be given retrospective effect so as to apply to the
application filed by the respondent-applicant for compassionate
appointment as the same was filed on 12.04.2016. The contention
of the counsel for the Union that the learned Tribunal has erred in
directing the petitioners to pass order in light of RBE circular dated
30.12.2019 has force since the circular dated 30.12.2019 cannot
be given retrospective effect. Since both the circulars dated
21.03.2018 and 30.12.2019 were not in operation on the date
when the application for compassionate appointment was filed and
rejected, both the circulars cannot be given retrospective effect.
6. The writ petition is accordingly partly allowed while holding
that the circular dated 30.12.2019 does not have retrospective
effect. The rest of the order directing the petitioners to consider
the case of the applicant-respondent for compassionate
appointment if he is found fit for appointment on compassionate
grounds is upheld.
7. The writ petition is accordingly partly allowed.
(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J (PANKAJ BHANDARI),J
Ritu/52
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
