Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 3413 (ALL)

JAI PRAKASH GUPTA v. UNION OF INDIA

2016-10-05

K.J.THAKER, SUDHIR AGARWAL

body2016
JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker,J. 1. Heard Sri Vikas Budhwar, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Sriprakash Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos.4 and 5 and Sri Arnab Banerjee, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos.2 and 3. 2. This writ petition is directed against judgment and order dated 10.05.2007 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as "Tribunal") in Original Application No.398 of 2004 whereby Tribunal has issued following direction while disposing of original application : "The respondent No.3, the G.M. D.L.W., Varanasi, is therefore, directed to look into the matter personally and take suitable action against Shri Jai Prakash Gupta. In the event of his services being terminated, the applicant's case for compassionate appointment be considered. If the said Jai Prakash Gupta undertakes to maintain the family, there may not be any need to consider the case of the applicant. The applicant be kept informed of the action taken. This order be complied with, within a period of six months from the date of communication of this order. With the above directions, the OA is disposed of. No cost." 3. It is submitted that Panna Lal, father of respondent no.5 and husband of respondent no.4, an employee of respondent-Railway, died on 20.10.1978. As per Rules applicable at relevant time since respondent no.4 was not suitable for compassionate appointment and her son was minor, petitioner being near relative of deceased employee was given compassionate appointment considering that he shall maintain dependents of deceased employee. Consequently, petitioner was appointed on 18.02.1980 on the post of Clerk. Later petitioner got promotion and became Officer Superintendent Grade-II in the year 2002. 4. Respondent nos.4 and 5 filed Original Application stating that petitioner maintained them for sometime but later-on stopped supporting them. Hence they sought relief from Tribunal directing Railway authorities to give appointment to respondent no.5, Rajesh Kumar Gupta, which has been disposed of by Tribunal vide impugned judgment and order dated 10.05.2007. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that in paragraph no.4.7 of Original Application, respondent no.5 submitted that for sometime petitioner supported them but later-on stopped supporting but no date has been mentioned when such support was withdrawn by petitioner. He further submitted that his appointment was never challenged. Only a direction was prayed that compassionate appointment be given to respondent no.5. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that in paragraph no.4.7 of Original Application, respondent no.5 submitted that for sometime petitioner supported them but later-on stopped supporting but no date has been mentioned when such support was withdrawn by petitioner. He further submitted that his appointment was never challenged. Only a direction was prayed that compassionate appointment be given to respondent no.5. That was not possible since petitioner was already appointed and right to claim compassionate appointment stood exhausted. He submits that in Original Application filed in the year 2004, no such relief was prayed nor could have been granted at all. The Tribunal erred in issuing certain directions to General Manager, Diesel Locomotive Works, Varanasi, which are detrimental to petitioner. 6. When enquired by Court, learned counsel for respondent nos.4 and 5 was unable to say as to when cause of action arose for filing Original Application before Tribunal, inasmuch as no date has been mentioned therein since when cause of action arose due to stopping of maintaining respondent nos.4 and 5 them. Nothing has been stated in entire Original Application. The appointment of petitioner was also not challenged. Therefore, there was no occasion for Tribunal to issue a direction to Railway to take action against petitioner, who has been granted compassionate appointment in the year 1980 while Original Application was filed in year 2004, i.e. after a lapse of more than 24 years. 7. In our view, order passed by Tribunal is erroneous, illegal, unwarranted and unsustainable in law. 8. Writ petition is allowed. Judgement and order dated 10.05.2007 passed by Tribunal in Original Application No.398 of 2004 is set aside. Original Application is dismissed. 9. No order as to costs. 10. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.