AMAR CHAND Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for setting aside letter No. 3982075/SR/LN/NE (Coord) dtd. 20/1/2021 (Annexure P-16), issued by respondent No.4, whereby the petitioner has been declined appointment as a Soldier on compassionate grounds. Further prayer of the petitioner is for issuance of a writ of mandamus, directing the respondents to enroll/consider the antecedents of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds in the rank of 'Sepoy' in terms of the parameters prescribed by respondent No.1, vide its letter No. B/05183/CA/Poricy/rnf-6 (Pers) dtd. 20/6/2018 (Annexure P-15).

(2.) Facts as mentioned in the petition are; that the father of the petitioner namely; Naik Gurdip Singh, Army No. 3982075A, resident of Village and Post Office Bachhohi, Tehsil Garshankar, District Hoshiarpur was serving in the Indian Army. He died while on duty. Although, at the initial stage, there was a dispute as to the manner in which father of the petitioner had expired, however, ultimately, the respondent authorities conceded the fact that the father of the petitioner died in Operational Area on the line of control on 12/5/2000. The death of the father of the petitioner was held to be attributable to Army service. Accordingly, vide letter dtd. 16/8/2011, the respondents asked the mother of the petitioner to send her son for consideration for compassionate appointment and the authorities granted family pension to the mother of the petitioner vide letter dtd. 26/11/2011. Hence, after the mother of the petitioner was granted family pension by the authorities in the year 2011, an application was made by the sister of the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment on account of death of the father of the petitioner. However, that application was rejected by the respondents vide order dtd. 21/10/2015. While rejecting her claim, the objection taken by the respondents was that her name was not on army service record of the deceased father of the petitioner. As per the assertion of the respondents, at that time, only two off-springs of the deceased employee were on the record of the Army. Accordingly, the respondents had made an offer to the brother of the petitioner, who was named in the letter itself, for compassionate appointment. However, the brother of the petitioner did not avail that opportunity.

(3.) Another fact which has come on record is that when the father of the petitioner died, the petitioner was only one year of age. Hence, he was also not on service record of his father. But when the matter; regarding the petitioner also being one of the off-springs of the deceased soldier; was brought to the notice of the authorities, the petitioner was also brought on record of the Army as the son of his deceased father vide publication dated8.02.2018. Since, earlier the sister of the petitioner had been declined the offer of appointment and the brother of the petitioner had not availed the opportunity; and further, the petitioner was not on record of the Army, and accordingly, he could not have applied at that time, therefore, after the petitioner was brought on Army records, an application was made by the petitioner on 21/5/2018 for considering his name for compassionate appointment. However that request was declined by the respondents vide letter dtd. 6/7/2018 on the ground that the application for compassionate appointment could have been made within 5 years from the date of death of his deceased father; and that the petitioner was not eligible for appointment on compassionate grounds. However, interestingly in the said letter itself, it was written by the respondents that as per existing policy, the petitioner was eligible for enrollment in Army under Unit Headquarter Quota. But at that time, his appointment even under that Quota was not considered by the authorities. Thereafter, again a request for reconsideration was sent by the petitioner through his counsel on 5/12/2020. The said request was also denied by the respondents vide letter dtd. 20/1/2021 on the ground that the case of the petitioner had already been considered and rejected. It is against this action of the respondents that the present petition has been filed.