VIDYOTAMA THAPLIYAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsels for the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner has filed this writ petition praying for a writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on the post of Branch Post Master, Village Deusa on compassionate ground. Apart from this by means of a supplementary affidavit, the petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the order dated 3.3.2004.

(3.) Brief facts of the case are as follows:- The husband of the petitioner was working as a Branch Post Master (E.D.A) at Post Office Deusa (Kanskhet), District Pauri Garhwal since 1982 on permanent basis. At this juncture, it is necessary to state that the post on which the husband of the petitioner was working is the post of a Village Post Master, in a remote hill village. The husband of the petitioner died on 11.8.2001 leaving behind his mother, wife (i.e. the petitioner) and two minor daughters and a minor son. Since there was financial hardship in the family, the petitioner being the widow of the deceased promptly applied for appointment on compassionate ground and her papers were forwarded to the concerned Authorities. Annexure-2 to the writ petition filed by the petitioner is a letter asking for certain documents from the petitioner in order to appoint her as a Branch Post Master on compassionate grounds. However, vide a cryptic order dated 7.3.2003, the petitioner was informed by the Department that her case for appointment on compassionate grounds was examined by the Divisional Office and was not found suitable, and therefore, her application for appointment on compassionate grounds was rejected. No reason whatsoever has been assigned in the order as to on what grounds the claim of the petitioner has been rejected. Thereafter against the said order, the petitioner also filed an Appeal, which was also rejected by order dated 3.3.2004 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition). Again, this order explains nothing! All it says is that the case of the petitioner has not been found suitable for appointment on compassionate grounds.