Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 617 (PAT)

Union of India v. Central Admn. Tribunal

2006-07-20

body2006
ORDER The Union of India and the officers of the Postal Department seek to challenge an order, dated 8.8.2003 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench in OA No. 580 of 2001 by which the petitioners (respondents before the Tribunal) were directed to appoint respondent no.2 (Ravindra Kumar) on the post of Postal Assistant on compassionate grounds. 2. Father of Ravindra Kumar was a postal employee. He died on 9.4.1993. At the time of his death he was in service. Ravindra Kumar made an application for his appointment on compassionate grounds. His case was finally considered by the Circle Relaxation Committee (C.R.C.) in the year, 1997 and he was recommended for appointment on the post of Postal Assistant. No appointment letter, however, was issued to him and after some time he was offered the post of Gramin Dak Sewak (G.D.S. for short). Though the respondent expressed his willingness to join as Gramin Dak Sewak, as a matter of fact he did not join the post and instead came to the Tribunal seeking a direction for his appointment as Postal Assistant in terms of his selection and recommendation by the C.R.C. 3. Before the Tribunal the departmental authorities took the plea that in 1998 appointments on compassionate grounds were subjected to the ceiling of 5% of the available vacancies and as no vacancy was available, it was not possible to appoint the applicant respondent as Postal Assistant. The Tribunal rejected the objection raised on behalf of the departmental authorities. It relied upon a decision of the Madhya Pradesh Bench of the Tribunal, affirmed by Madhya Pradesh High Court, that held that the ceiling of 5% introduced in 1998 would have no affect on recommendations/selections made prior to that date. The Tribunal further relied upon some of its own earlier decisions in cases of compassionate appointments in the Postal Department. It primarily relied upon its order, dated 29.5.2002 in OA No. 483 of 2001 (Mukesh Kumar Karn Vs. Union of India) which was confirmed by this court by judgment, dated 20.11.2002 and finally by the supreme court which dismissed the special leave petition in limine by order, dated 10.7.2003 in S.L.P. (Civil) No. CC 5270 of 2003. It also relied upon another order passed by it on 28.7.2003 in OA No. 541 of 2001 (Hare Krishna Singh Vs. Union of India). 4. It also relied upon another order passed by it on 28.7.2003 in OA No. 541 of 2001 (Hare Krishna Singh Vs. Union of India). 4. It appears that a number of orders of a similar nature came to this court from the Tribunal to which we shall advert presently. 5. Mr. M.A. Mishra, Standing Counsel Central Government submitted that neither the case of Hare Krishna Singh nor the decision in Mukesh Kumar Karn can be taken as binding precedent for this court. Learned counsel pointed out that the decision in the case of Hare Krishna Singh (OA No. 541/2001) became final at the level of the Tribunal itself as it was not challenged before this court. In so far the case of Mukesh Kumar Karn is concerned, it is indeed true that the writ petition filed against the decision of the Tribunal was dismissed by this court and the S.L.P. against the orders was also dismissed in limine. But in Mukesh Kumar Karn the matter came to this court, for the first time, against the third order passed by the Tribunal between the parties. Mukesh Kumar Karn had approached the Tribunal earlier and his first OA was disposed of with a direction to the departmental authorities to consider his claim for appointment on compassionate grounds. In pursuance of the Tribunal's direction the departmental authorities considered his case and selected him for appointment. Nevertheless, no appointment letter was issued to him and he went to the Tribunal for the second time. On the second occasion the Tribunal directed the departmental authorities to appoint him in persuance of the selection without undue delay but when no steps were taken by the departmental authorities in this regard, he went to the Tribunal for a third time and on this occasion the Tribunal gave a direction for his appointment within a specified time. It was the third order that was brought under challenge before this court and the court refused to entertain the challenge or go into the merits of the case on the ground that the earlier two orders of the Tribunal remained unchallenged and, thus, attained finality. 6. It was the third order that was brought under challenge before this court and the court refused to entertain the challenge or go into the merits of the case on the ground that the earlier two orders of the Tribunal remained unchallenged and, thus, attained finality. 6. On the other hand a number of similar orders from the Tribunal came under challenge before this court in different writ petitions that were heard together by a bench of this court and all those writ petitions, being CWJC No. 15347 of 2004 and other analogous cases, were allowed by order, dated 19.4.2006. It is significant to note that CWJC No. 15347 and other analogous cases were allowed by a bench presided over by R.N. Prasad, J. who also happened to be the Presiding Judge on the bench that had earlier dismissed the writ petition in the case of Mukesh Kumar Karn. It is also to be noted that in course of arguments in CWJC No. 15347 and the analogous cases reliance was placed on the earlier order in the case of Mukesh Kumar Karn but the bench distinguished that decision on the grounds as noted above. The bench decision in CWJC No. 15347 and analogous cases rendered on identical facts constitutes a binding precedent for this bench. 7. Following that decision, therefore, this writ petition must also be allowed and the order of the Tribunal set aside. We do so. 8. At this stage counsel for the respondent submitted that respondent had been asked to join as G.D.S., B.P.M. but he had not joined so far due to the pendency of this matter before this court. It is made clear that the decision in this case allowing the writ petition filed by the departmental authorities shall not stand in the way of the respondent in joining as G.D.S., B.P.M. provided there was such an offer to him by the departmental authorities. 9. In the result this writ petition is allowed but with no order as to costs.