- (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the Appellant.
(2.) APPELLANT is aggrieved with the part of the order dated 10th July 2008 inasmuch as, the order impugned dated 22nd November 1999 terminating the services of writ Petitioner/Appellant was set aside, but no consequential benefit was granted to the writ Petitioner/Appellant. According to the learned Counsel for the Appellant, once the order of termination was set aside by the High Court by exercising its writ jurisdiction, the natural consequences should have followed. It is also submitted that it was none of the fault of the writ Petitioner and because of the fault of the employer, he cannot be made to suffer. Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the writ Petitioner/Appellant is entitled to the continuity of his service with full back wages and if not, at the most, he is entitled to 50% of the back wages from the date when his services were terminated and it was found to be illegal.
(3.) WE have considered the submissions of the learned Counsel for the Appellant and perused the facts of the case. The Appellant was given compassionate appointment on 22nd September 1999 and his services were terminated on 22nd November 1999 i.e. only after two months. Therefore, Petitioner/Appellant rendered total service of only two months before termination of his service. The Petitioner/Appellant's brother also applied for compassionate appointment in view of the fact that the Appointing Authority itself observed that in case any family members of the original deceased employee will apply, his case will be considered according to the merit of the case. However, Petitioner/Appellant's brother's case for compassionate appointment was rejected by the Appointing Authority, against which he also preferred a writ petition which was dismissed and it was observed that the present Petitioner/Appellant's case will be considered on its own merit.;