Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 548 (JHR)

Sheodesh Singh v. Union of India

2016-04-04

PRAMATH PATNAIK

body2016
JUDGMENT : Per Pramath Patnaik, J.: In the instant writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for payment of insurance amount due upon respondent no. 4 and also for direction upon the respondents for disclosure of additional benefits of the petitioner and its subsequent payment and further for direction upon the concerned respondents to provide compassionate appointment to one of the sons of the petitioner immediately. 2. The facts, as disclosed in the writ application, in a nutshell is that the petitioner joined as Constable on 15.01.1968. While continuing as such, on 22.05.2006 in Fatehkadal (Sri Nagar), he was directed to do patrolling duty in view of the visit of Hon'ble Prime Minister of India. During such duty, suddenly there was a attack from the terrorist, in which, petitioner's right leg was badly injured and for better treatment he was transferred from Sri Nagar to AIIMS, Delhi. In the meantime, he was superannuated on 31.10.2006 and after superannuation he was compelled to leave the Base Hospital. Being aggrieved, the petitioner submitted representation (Annexure-1) before the respondents for taking action regarding emoluments and insurance payments and also for benefits of compassionate appointment to the dependent of the petitioner. It has further been averred that insurance claim of the petitioner was denied on the ground of stale claim. 3. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of his grievances. 4. Per contra, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents contending therein that the petitioner has never applied for compassionate appointment. The benefit of compassionate appointment is not suo-motto provided by the department rather for getting compassionate appointment one has to apply for the same before the competent authorities, who will decide the same as per departmental instructions issued from time to time. It has further been averred that all the pensionary benefits as due and admissible has been given to the petitioner as per CCS (Pension) Rules and other instructions issued from time to time. 5. Heard Mr. M.A. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajiv Sinha, learned A.S.G.I for the respondents-Union of India. 6. After some argument, learned counsel for the petitioner confined his prayer for direction upon the respondents to provide compassionate appointment to one of the sons of the petitioner. 5. Heard Mr. M.A. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Rajiv Sinha, learned A.S.G.I for the respondents-Union of India. 6. After some argument, learned counsel for the petitioner confined his prayer for direction upon the respondents to provide compassionate appointment to one of the sons of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that grievance of the petitioner would be redressed if a direction is issued to the respondents to consider his case for compassionate appointment. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents-Union of India does not raise serious dispute to that course of action. 8. In view of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties, without delving into the merits of the case, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to submit fresh representation, for consideration of giving compassionate appointment to his dependent, within a period of eight weeks from today, before the respondents-authorities, who upon receipt thereof shall pass a speaking and reasoned order within a period of eighteen weeks from the date of receipt of such representation, copy of which shall also be communicated to the petitioner. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Petition disposed of.