Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 294 (PAT)

Mahesh Sah v. Union Of India

2002-03-04

RAVI S.DHAVAN, SHASHANK KR.SINGH

body2002
Judgment 1. The order of the Central Administrative Tribunal impugned is 20 December 1999. The petition has been filed in March 2002. A delay of more than 2 years has not been explained satisfactorily. 2. The petitioner Mahesh Sah claims that he ought to be appointed on compassionate ground on the principle of rule of harness. He filed a claim petition before the CAT claiming that his salary after March 1990 until April 1993. has not been paid. In so far as the record is concerned the petitioner was permitted to work in lieu of his father, who had fallen ill, and carry out his duty from July 1989 to mid March 1990. He was paid his dues in April 1990. 3. The petitioner filed a claim petition before the tribunal. The application filed by the petitioner before the tribunal as a claim petition has not been appended to the petition. The court sought this from learned counsel for the petitioner and this has been perused by the court. The petitioner apparently was claiming continuous service for the purposes of being regularized. The contention of the petitioner was that he had done 240 days of continuous service. The tribunal did not consider this contention regard being had to the circumstances of the special engagement of the petitioner to come to the aid of his ailing father. 4. Claiming a job on the basis of rule of harness or as a compassionate appointment was never the case of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner attempted to unionise the matter and had a letter sent from the Union to the department of Post Offices. The letter of the Union is on record. The letter of the Union does not fairly give out the picture whether the petitioner was entitled to a job and be made regular or not. The petitioner had only been permitted as an indulgence to carry out the duties of his ailing father. The petitioner had never been appointed in lieu of his father. 5. In the circumstances the CAT directed that the petitioner be paid the salary for working in the place of this father effective July 1989 to April 1990. The rest of the case of the petitioner was rightly rejected. 6. Dismissed.