UNION OF INDIA Vs. RAJENDRA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on admission.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-Union of India has vehemently urged before this Court that the learned Tribunal ought not to have interferred with the order rejecting application for grant of voluntary retirement and claim of compassionate appointment to son of the employee because as per the applicable scheme, REB Letter No. 78/2006 dtd. 14/6/2006, even otherwise, the employee was not entitled to have the claim.

(3.) Arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners are more hypothetical because we find that the order challenged before the Tribunal contained the reasoning other than that which are now being advanced before us by learned counsel for the petitioners-Union of India. The operative reason before the Tribunal being that the application was belated, was met with reasoning that there was delay in issuance of disability certificate. That being factually correct, we do not think that the order of the Tribunal suffer from any patent illegality or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India & Others, (1997) 3 SCC 261.