Decided on November 02,2012

Garrison Engineers, M.E.S. Prem Nagar Respondents


Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta, J. - (1.) IN this writ petition, the petitioner being son of one Late Sri Satya Prakash, who was an employee of the establishment of respondent No. 1, assails order passed by respondent No. 1 rejecting the prayer for compassionate appointment. Undisputed facts are stated hereunder:
(2.) THE father of the writ petitioner died on 1st August, 2001 in harness. Almost immediately after the date of death, the petitioner on 5th November, 2001 applied for compassionate appointment in any post befitting to his qualification. This application was received and entertained and action was taken by the respondents authority asking Tehsildar concerned to furnish a report about the petitioner owing any movable and immovable property. In response to the letter dated 8th July, 2002 written by the respondent for above purpose, the Tehsildar concerned reported that his family did not have any property either movable or immovable in nature. On receipt of this report, the reaction of the respondents authority was communicated by a letter dated 10th April, 2003 telling that there has been no vacancy on that date as the quota of post earmarked being 5% for the compassionate appointment is exhausted. By the said letter, it was assured that case would be reconsidered by fresh Board of Officer in due course of time. Thereafter, on 10th April, 2003 which is under challenged here, the order of rejection was communicated mentioning amongst other, that the petitioner's case is not a fit to be considered as on death of his father, the family has received substantial amount as a terminal benefit. They also own property worth Rs. 10,000/ -, therefore, this family is not in a distress condition for which compassionate appointment was warranted. In the writ petition, plea of discrimination and arbitrariness has been taken. It is alleged that the plea of the respondents, that the petitioner's family is possessing immovable property of Rs. 10,000/ - is absolutely incorrect and the extent of pecuniary benefit as alleged, received as from the respondent is not correct. He has stated in writ petition a meager amount of pension of Rs. 1,350/ - is being received by the widow of the deceased to maintain a family consisting of widow, three sons and one unmarried daughter and the members of the family are residing in a rented house as they do not own any house to dwell. In the counter affidavit, the statement as to the financial condition as well as the proprietary status have not been denied or disputed. It is reiterated what has been stated in the impugned order of rejection. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order of rejection is absolutely illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the norms followed by them systematically. The plea of no vacancy at the earlier stage or subsequent stage is falsified by the fact that another candidate who was similarly situated was given a compassionate appointment on death of another employee which occurred subsequent to the death of the father of the petitioner. This fact has been stated in the rejoinder affidavit in paragraph 6. This statement has never been attempted to be dealt with by filing any affidavit.
(3.) IN view of the aforesaid situation, the rejection order must be quashed and the respondent be directed to give appointment to the petitioner befitting to his qualification.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.