SARJEET Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Counsel for the respondent has produced the relevant records. Counsel for the respondent has drawn my attention to the decision of the respondent on the application of the petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. In the present case vide award dated 24.07.2001 in ID No. 29/99 directions were given to the respondent/DDA to consider the case of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground, and thereafter then pass a speaking order.

(2.) Perusal of the records produced by counsel for the respondent clearly shows that no fresh decision was taken by the respondent pursuant to the directions given by the Tribunal in the said award. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent/DDA, reference has been made to the earlier rejection made by the Screening Committee. This evidently shows that the communication made by the respondent to the petitioner on 15.12.2003 is a reiteration of earlier decision taken by the Screening Committee and not any fresh decision in compliance with the directions of the Tribunal in the said award. The letter dated 15.12.2003 rejecting the request of the petitioner was communicated by the Joint Director, Horticulture, Division No. 1. The said letter dated 15.12.2003 also does not spell out any reasons for rejecting the case of the petitioner except stating that as per the guidelines and policy of the department, the case of the petitioner was not fit for appointment on compassionate ground. This decision of the respondent/DDA as communicated by the said letter dated 15.12.2003 cannot be considered a speaking order as directed by the Tribunal in the said award.

(3.) Let the case of the petitioner be considered afresh in view of the said directions given by the Tribunal. On account of lapse of a long period, let the petitioner make a fresh representation disclosing the grounds for his appointment on compassionate basis. Let fresh representation be made by the petitioner within a period of four weeks and the same be considered by the respondent within a period of 12 weeks with a speaking order. In the event of any decision being taken by the respondent to reject the case of the petitioner, liberty is granted to the petitioner to challenge such decision of the respondent.