NAVEEN KUMAR Vs. JVR PRASADA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A Division Bench of this Court on 25.8.2003 while disposing of CWP No. 5326 of 2002 has issued a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case and the observations made by the Division Bench in the afore- mentioned judgement. A period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of that order was fixed. According to the observations made by the Division Bench, the case of the petitioner could not be rejected merely on the ground that elder brother of the petitioner is working as Senior Scale Stenographer in the Post Graduate Institute, Chandigarh and that factor alone was not to constitute the basis to reject the claim of the petitioner. It was further observed that in para 10(a) of the instructions dated 9.10.1998 there are various factors which are required to be taken into account for appointment of a dependent of deceased on compassionate grounds. It was also observed that the afore- mentioned instructions do not debar the appointment of a dependent of the deceased on compassionate ground merely because one of the children is already in the employment.

(2.) In support of the afore-mentioned conclusion, judgements of various Courts were also cited in the order. When the matter came up for consideration on 30.8.2005, this Court has rejected the purported order passed by respondent no.1 as it rehabilitated those very grounds which were rejected by the Division Bench. Those grounds were sought to be reintroduced and rehabilitated in the order Annexure R/1/3 passed on 5.4.2004.

(3.) On 28.11.2005, the Director of the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh was also permitted to be impleaded as respondent no.2. Thereafter a reply was filed stating that the competent authority to consider the case of compassionate appointment was Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi. In support of the afore-mentioned claim, para 10 of the instructions dated 9.10.1998 was cited by the respondent. It was further claimed that vide letter dated 25.1.2006 the case of the petitioner had been forwarded to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi with the recommendation for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate grounds as per para 10 of the instructions. The hearing of the petition was deferred on 6.2.2006 to this date.