Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 775 (ALL)

Dinesh Kumar Rajbhar v. Dinesh Kumar Rajbhar

2019-03-29

ABDUL MOIN

body2019
JUDGMENT : Abdul Moin, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Dhirendra Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. By means of the present petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the roster position of petitioner at Serial No. 35 for compassionate appointment in the list contained as annexure 1 to the petition. Further direction is for a Mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the name of the petitioner in the roster on the basis of date of death of his father for compassionate appointment. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that despite the father of the petitioner having died on 26.11.2012, the list which is called roster in the department which has been prepared for considering the cases of compassionate appointment has not been prepared in accordance with the date of death rather has been prepared in a haphazard manner and without having any basis. Thus, he contends that the roster which has been prepared, a copy of which has been filed as annexure 1 to the writ petition should be quashed and the respondents be directed to prepare a list/roster strictly on the basis of death of the employees claiming compassionate appointment. 4. On the other hand, Sri Dhirendra Singh, learned counsel appearing for all the respondents on the basis of instructions submits that in fact the list which has been issued by the respondents, a copy of which has been filed as annexure 1 has been issued strictly in compliance of the office memo dated 20.03.2012 issued by the Food Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as " FCI") to the General Manager of all the regions. As per the said office memorandum, it has specifically directed that the date of death shall be the criteria for seniority of roster. Placing reliance on the said office memorandum, Sri Singh contends that a perusal of list, copy of which has been filed as annexure 1 to the petition itself indicates in column 7 that the list strictly adheres to the date of death/retirement on medical grounds of the persons whose dependents are now claiming compassionate appointment. He thus contends that once the list has been prepared strictly as per the date of death/retirement of such persons whose dependents are claiming compassionate appointment, as such there is nothing wrong with the said list. 5. He thus contends that once the list has been prepared strictly as per the date of death/retirement of such persons whose dependents are claiming compassionate appointment, as such there is nothing wrong with the said list. 5. As regards, the claim of the petitioner for a direction to the respondents to consider the name of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, Sri Dhirendra Singh submits that there is ceiling limit of five percent of vacancies which has been fixed by the FCI. He further contends on the basis of instructions that as and when the turn of the petitioner comes for compassionate appointment, as per roster his claim would be considered provided the petitioner is eligible. 6. Heard the learned counsels for the contesting parties and having perused the records. 7. A perusal of the list, a copy of which has been filed as annexure 1 to the petition indicates that as per column 7, the respondents have followed the criteria of making of the list on the basis of date of death of the person on the basis of which dependents are claiming compassionate appointment. The said list thus appears to be in full consonance and compliance of the office memorandum dated 20.03.2012 as indicated by the learned counsel for the respondent. 8. Accordingly, keeping in view the aforesaid discussions and the statement of Sri Dhirendra Singh, no ground for quashing of said list as annexed as annexure 1 to the petition is made out. However, the statement of Sri Dhirendra Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the list has been prepared strictly on the basis of date of death of the employees of the FCI and for consideration of the case of the petitioner for the compassionate appointment as and when his turn comes as per the roster is recorded. 9. The writ petition is consigned to record.