DHANESWAR MEDHI Vs. UNION OF INDIA
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
UNION OF INDIA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) The petitioner herein, has preferred this application before this Court on the grievance that his application for appointment on compassionate ground has not been duly considered and that he has been deprived of the same due to the arbitrary acts of the respondents.
(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(3.) Mr. P.K. Borah, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein is the eldest son of the deceased employee who expired on 29.06.2003 when the petitioner was still a minor aged 11(eleven) years old. The learned counsel submits that the petitioner on attaining majority, had applied for appointment on compassionate ground in the year 2009, and it was only in 2013 that the petitioner was informed vide letter dated 21.03.2013 by the respondent No. 2 that he was placed at Sl. No. 19 in the list for consideration for appointment on compassionate ground. Learned counsel submits that the respondents then by letter dated 10.11.2014 communicated that after review by the Compassionate Appointment Committee, the petitioner was placed at Sl. No. 37, and thereafter down the years, the Sl. No. of the petitioner went to Sl. No. 40 in 2016, Sl. No. 41 in 2017 and Sl. No. 49 in 2018. Learned counsel has also drawn the attention of the Court to the fact that the appointment on compassionate ground is based on the recommendations of the Compassionate Appointment Committee as per the indigent index. In this context, learned counsel submits that as per this index the petitioner is now placed at 10.1 and it is the norm that a person whose indigent index is less than 10 (points) is no longer considered eligible for appointment. Learned counsel submits that on this aspect also, the respondents have acted arbitrarily and delayed his case which has resulted in his low indigent index ranking.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.