SHRI JAYANTIBHAI NATVARLAL PARMAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant's father died in harness on 30 -11 -2002 while he was serving as a Sorting Postman at Navrangpura Head Post Office, Ahmedabad. On 23 -4 -2003 the applicant's mother sent Annexure -A/3 application with all requisite documents and certificates to respondent No. 3 requesting for giving appointment to the applicant on compassionate grounds. The applicant had also submitted the requisite information vide Annexure -A/4 duly verified and authenticated by the Public Relationship Inspector (Postal) Rajpur Gomtipur Post Office, Ahmedabad. Nothing was heard till 2007 although the applicant's family was anxiously waiting for favourable orders. On 18 -6 -2007 respondent No. 3 caused to issue Annexure -A/5 communication calling upon the applicant to furnish the required forms and synopsis afresh. Thereafter applicant invoking the provisions of RTI Act sought information about the fate of his earlier request in 2003. In reply the applicant received Annexure -A/6 dt. 1 -8 -2007 informing that his earlier application is not traceable. Applicant filed appeal against Annexure -A/6 on which the Appellate Authority under the RTI Act issued Annexure -A/8 order. Thereafter vide Annexure -A/7 letter dated 27 -8 -2012 the applicant was requested to wait for a decision on the subject and to avoid sending reminders. The required documents were provided to the PRI (P) Rajpur Gomtipur on 10 -11 -2007 under Annexure -A/9 acknowledgement. Thereafter vide Annexure -A/1 letter dated 08 -1 -2013 the applicant was informed that his request was not recommended by the Circle Selection Committee which met on 19 -9 -2012. The applicant sent Annexure -A/10 representation to respondent No. 2 on 25 -3 -2013. However the same was rejected by respondent No. 2 vide Annexure -A/2 dated 13 -9 -2013. Hence the applicant filed this OA praying for the following relief's:

(2.) A rejoinder was filed by the applicant contending that respondents have intentionally sidetracked their lapses in not treating his application of 2003 properly and is putting the blame on the applicant stating that he is responsible for sleeping over his rights for years together. According to the applicant he had been making oral inquiries with the office of respondent No. 3 and he has been getting empty assurances that he will get his reply at his residence. The applicant waited till 2007. The ex -employee was the main breadwinner of the family. Comparison of his date of birth with date of retirement shows the carelessness and inhumane attitude of the respondents. The respondents were predetermined to throw the applicant's request in waste paper bucket. The chart at Annexure -R/1 was prepared by the respondents after the year 2010 because the said chart is based on the point system introduced only in 2010. Therefore Annexure -R/1 chart has no relevancy to the applicant. Although the applicant was aged 30 years at the time of submission of the application in 2003, as per the rules and orders prevailing at that time he could have been accommodated in the Non -test category of Group D, but due to carelessness of the respondents, his application was lost and became untraceable. The family of the applicant had been in indigent condition waiting for the appointment of the applicant on compassionate grounds. The respondents cannot state that the applicant is not qualified for the post of MTS which was introduced in the year 2010 whereas the applicant had applied for appointment in the year 2003. Had the respondent processed the claim of the applicant in the year 2003 or 2004, it could have been considered in his favour as per the terms and conditions prevailed at that time. The applicant prays for judicial review of the impugned orders Annexure A/1 and A/2 and to grant the relief's prayed for in the OA with costs.

(3.) WHILE dealing with this case it has come to the notice of this Tribunal that the respondents had been taking a total unsustainable defence to cover up the lapses occurred to them and that they had dealt with the applicant's 2003 request for compassionate appointment with crass negligence. The respondents and their officers right from the bottom to the top have been trying to prevaricate and to take totally untenable contentions in this case.