CHANDRAMA SAH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been filed by Shri. Chandrama Sah under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer for setting aside and quashing the impugned order dated 29.12.2007, whereby his claim for compassionate appointment was rejected. Being aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has come before this Court with a prayer to set aside and quash the said impugned order dated 29.12.2007 and issue a writ of mandamus by directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner on compassionate ground.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the father of the petitioner Rameshwar Sah had been working as an employee on the post of Mate - 220177 (Group - D) under the respondent authorities. He died in harness while posted under the respondent No. 6 i.e. Garrison Engineers, 868 Engineers Works C/O/99 A.P.O. on 15.03.2004. The petitioner immediately applied for compassionate appointment. The respondent No. 6 issued a letter asking the petitioner to submit certain documents vide letter dated 01.06.2004 for consideration of his case for compassionate appointment. However, application of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated 29.12.2007 on the ground that there are more deserving cases and very few vacancies are available. Against the said impugned order dated 29.12.2007, the petitioner moved the Patna High Court by filing the writ petition, which was dismissed. Thereafter, the petitioner filed appeal before the Division Bench of the Patna High Court and the same was dismissed as not maintainable and transferred the same to the Armed Force Tribunal, Regional Bench, Kolkata. The matter was registered there as T.A. No. 14 of 2013. The learned Tribunal by order dated 12.12.2013 dismissed the petition as not maintainable on the premise that neither the petitioner nor his deceased father is/was governed by the Army Act, 1950, the Navy Act, 1957 and Air Force Act, 2007. Therefore, under the provisions of Section 2 of the Armed Forces Act, 2007, the petitioner could not be considered to be a dependant of a person, who was covered by the aforesaid enactments. In view thereof, the petition was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and liberty was reserved to the petitioner to approach the appropriate forum, if so advised. The Tribunal also made it clear that the period of pendency of the matter before the Patna High Court as well as the Tribunal be excluded for the purpose of limitation.

(3.) The petitioner thereafter filed another writ petition before the Single Bench of the Hon 'ble Calcutta High Court, which was dismissed vide judgment and order dated 01.04.2015. The petitioner thereafter filed an appeal against the aforesaid judgment before the Division Bench of that High Court. However, the Division Bench dismissed the same observing that while it could be true that compassionate appointment may not be offered after long lapse of time. Since the order of rejection originated from Shillong instead of Meghalaya, the writ petition can be filed and maintained there only.