SANJAY KUMAR Vs. F.C.I. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner seeks to assail the validity and legality of the letter (Annex. 8) dated 12.12.2002 whereby the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment in the respondent corporation in place of his father Shri Lilu Ram, who expired while in service of the respondent corporation was dismissed.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order whereby the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment was dismissed does not disclose any reasons whatsoever and thus, the same deserves to be quashed. He contends that the petitioner had submitted an application complete in all respects whilst praying for compassionate appointment. He relies on the office memorandum dated 9.10.1998 issued by the Central Government whereby a scheme was promulgated for giving appointment to the dependent family member of a government servant dying in harness. Learned counsel submits that the rejection of the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment is totally contrary to the objectives of the aforesaid scheme and therefore, the impugned order deserves to be quashed. He submits that the reason given by the respondents in the reply for rejecting the application that the application was incomplete, inasmuch as, the income details of the petitioner's brother were not disclosed is also unjust and baseless, inasmuch as, the petitioner was not asked to furnish information in that regard. He contends that the plea of the respondents that the reserved posts against compassionate appointment scheme were filled on first come first served basis and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to be appointed is also not tenable. No justification is available to support this plea. He contends that no details have been placed on record to show that any such procedure was adopted and if so then the basis thereof is not disclosed in the reply. He submits that it has not been shown as to when the other applicants, who were given appointment in precedence over the petitioner submitted their claims for being given compassionate appointment and thus, the action of the respondents is unjust and arbitrary. He thus prays that the writ petition deserves to be allowed.

(3.) HEARD and considered the arguments advanced at the bar and perused the material available on record.