RAMRAJ MEENA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner assails order dated 20.07.2010 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur dismissing O.A. No.193/2009 declining interference with the orders dated 05.08.2008 and 29.01.2009 refusing compassionate appointment.

(2.) Counsel for the Petitioner submits that his father died in harness on 27.06.2005. The Petitioner was informed on 25.03.2008 that his case was under consideration asking for certain information and documents. On 18.06.2008 he was asked to furnish information with regard to the criminal cases pending against him. He communicated that one of them had ended in a compromise and the second one was still pending. By a non-speaking order 05.08.2008 the Respondents rejected his candidature. The reasons were furnished on 29.01.2009 only after he served a legal notice on 21.01.2009. Assailing the rejection it was submitted that grant of terminal benefits cannot be a ground to deny compassionate appointment. Reliance in support was placed on (2005) 10 SCC 289 (Govind Prakash Verma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India) and (2000) 6 SCC 493 (Balbir Kaur Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd.).

(3.) It was further submitted that mere pendency of a criminal case can be no ground to deny compassionate appointment. There had also been no concealment of the same by the Petitioner. Reliance was placed on 2012 WLC(Raj.) UC 154 (Pramod Kumar Meena Vs. State of Rajasthan), 2013 WLC(Raj.) UC 206 (State of Rajasthan Vs. Sanjeev Kumar Gurjar) and 2013(3) WLC(Raj.) 485 (Rai Sahab Vs. State of Rajasthan).