LAWS(CHH)-2010-9-25

AMARKANT RAO Vs. UNION OF INDIA

Decided On September 02, 2010
AMARKANT RAO Appellant
V/S
UNION OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners herein challenging common order dated 29-8-2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench (henceforth 'the Tribunal') in O.A. No 161/2008 (Amarkant Rao vs. Union of India and others) and O.A No. 165/2008 (Abdul Rahim vs. Union of India and others). THE Tribunal, by the impugned order dated 29-8-2008 has also decided O.A. No. 166/2008 (M.L. Khan vs. Union of India and others), however, the said applicant, namely, M.L. Khan is not before us in writ petition.

(2.) THE Tribunal has dismissed the O.As., by which petitioners had sought for a direction to the respondents / Railways to grant appointment on compassionate ground to their wards on petitioners' being declared medically decategorised.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioners vehemently urged that in view of the provisions contained in section 47 of the Act, 1995, which is mandatory in nature, an employee shall not be dispensed with or reduced in rank on acquiring a disability during his service. However, the respondents/railways, in absolute violation of the said mandate, compelled them to submit and request for voluntary retirement and their applications for appointment on compassionate ground in favour of their wards has been refused in an arbitrary and unjust manner. Relying on the Supreme Court judgement in Kunal Singh vs. Union of India and another, (2003) 4 SCC 524, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that once it is held that the employee has acquired disability during his service and if found not suitable for the post he was holding, he should be shifted to some other post with same pay - scale and service benefits and if it was not possible to adjust him against post he could have been occupied on a supernumerary post until a suitable post was available. He further submitted that rejection of their prayer for appointment on compassionate ground on the basis of Railway Board's Circular dated 14- 6-2006 was not correct as they were compelled to seek voluntary retirement in the year 1999-2000.