MUKHTAR AHMAD LONE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Communication-cum-Order No. 1801/R/756/Est. dated 04.05.2012 addressed by respondent No. 7 to the petitioner, rejecting employment assistance on compassionate grounds to him is challenged in this petition with prayer to direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner on Group C or Group D post on compassionate grounds. Petitioner's brother, Manzoor Ahmad Lone, who was working as a Fireman under P. No. 2471 at Field Ordinance Depot, Khundroo, got killed in the fire incident in the Army Depot on 11.09.2007. Several other persons also died in the incident. Petitioner applied for his appointment on compassionate grounds and so did two other persons, namely, Abdul Rashid Bhat and Parveena Akhtar, apply. They jointly also filed a writ petition, SWP No. 1738/2010 before this Court. In response thereto, the respondents in their objections/reply stated that the petitioner's application was examined by the Board of Officers at HQ Northern Command on the basis of 100 points scale system evolved by the Ministry of Defence on all India basis as per the available vacancies in AOC under 5% reserved quota earmarked for such cases and that pending receipt of clarification from DOP & T/MOD regarding allotment of points in view of new pension scheme enforced w.e.f. 10.10.2004 applicable to the deceased employee, the final decision of the petitioner's case has been kept in abeyance. Thereafter, the respondents produced copies of two orders before the Court dated 04.05.2012 and 11.06.2012. In terms of order dated 04.05.2012 the petitioner's application was rejected; whereas vide the other order the other petitioner, Parveena Akhter, was shown to have been appointed as Trainee Mazdoor. The writ petition was, accordingly, disposed of and the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 04.05.2012.

(2.) Before stating the grounds of challenge taken by the petitioner in the writ petition, I deem it appropriate to briefly mention the facts-cum-reasons recorded by the respondents in the impugned order for rejecting the case of the petitioner. It is, inter alia, stated therein:

(3.) The grounds taken by the petitioner are that as per settled proposition of law parents, brother and unmarried sisters who are totally dependent on the deceased are entitled to appointment; that once at the 1st and the 2nd occasion of consideration of the petitioner's case he was awarded 25 points on account of dependency on the deceased employee, respondents had no jurisdiction to deduct these 25 points on the third occasion; that the respondents could not deprive the petitioner of appointment on compassionate grounds merely because the deceased's family has been paid ex-gratia relief and some amount under Workman's Compensation and further family pension has been granted to the family; that the brother of the deceased had died in extra ordinary circumstances, therefore, petitioner's case deserved a special treatment beyond 5% quota of the total direct recruitment vacancies reserved in normal routine in a year in Group 'C' and 'D' posts; that the petitioner has been singled out for hostile discrimination in an arbitrary and capricious manner; and that the respondents have not considered the case of the petitioner in terms of the Scheme in its correct perspective.