- (1.) THIS petition though listed on application for early hearing but arguments on the main petition were heard as the matter pertains to grant of compassionate appointment and petition was filed way back in the year 2000.
(2.) SHRI Sunil Samdaria, learned counsel for the petitioner has basically raised two arguments in assailing the order Annexure-2 and 4 whereby the request of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected and communicated to him. His first contention is that the impugned order does not contain any reason whatsoever as to why the respondents decided to reject the application of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment and second contention is that even if what is stated by the respondents for the first time in the reply to the writ petition, is taken into consideration, then also it is a case of discrimination because in similar circumstances, the respondents have granted compassionate appointment to Smt. Raj Kumari Meena, Smt. Nirmala Mittal, Smt. Bhanwanti, Smt. Gayatri Sharma and Smt. Geeta Uchail. It is argued that since petitioner received certain terminal benefits in 1998 after the death of her husband, would not be a reason to deny her compassionate appointment as all those five widows also received terminal benefits, yet they were granted compassionate appointment. Learned counsel relied on the judgement of Supreme Court in Govind Prakash Verma vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors.-(2005) 10 SCC 289. Shri Rupin Kala, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that cases of those five employees were governed by the new scheme and even if the death of the employee concerned had taken place prior to the commencement of the new scheme and at that time their case for compassionate appointment was pending consideration, the same would be governed by the new scheme. In this connection, learned counsel cited the judgement of Supreme Court in State Bank of India and Anr. vs. Raj Kumar-(2010) 11 SCC 661 and referring to para 8 thereof argued that even in such cases, the claim would be governed by the new scheme. It was argued that controversy raised in this petition is covered against the petitioner by the division bench judgement of this Court in Balvant Singh vs. Union of India-2007(1) CDR 209 (Raj.)(DB).
(3.) HAVING regard to the facts aforesaid, two things that emerge are that; firstly, the respondents have not indicated any reason whatsoever in the order refusing the prayer of the petitioner for compassionate appointment and secondly at the time when they rejected application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, arguments of discrimination did not receive their consideration.;