Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1986 (RAJ)

Union of India v. Rajendra Prasad

2021-10-20

FARJAND ALI, MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA

body2021
JUDGMENT 1. Heard on admission. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners-Union of India has vehemently urged before this Court that the learned Tribunal ought not to have interferred with the order rejecting application for grant of voluntary retirement and claim of compassionate appointment to son of the employee because as per the applicable scheme, REB Letter No. 78/2006 dated 14.06.2006, even otherwise, the employee was not entitled to have the claim. 3. Arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners are more hypothetical because we find that the order challenged before the Tribunal contained the reasoning other than that which are now being advanced before us by learned counsel for the petitioners-Union of India. The operative reason before the Tribunal being that the application was belated, was met with reasoning that there was delay in issuance of disability certificate. That being factually correct, we do not think that the order of the Tribunal suffer from any patent illegality or jurisdictional error warranting interference by this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of L. Chandra Kumar Vs. Union of India & Others, (1997) 3 SCC 261 . 4. The argument of learned counsel for the petitioners-Union of India that the policy that was available would not enure to the benefit of the employee need not be considered by us at this stage. All that the Tribunal has done is that it has set aside the order dated 01.02.2018 and it has directed Union of India to consider the application for voluntary retirement as also claim for compassionate appointment in accordance with the scheme, REB Letter No. 78/2006 dated 14.06.2006 and nothing more. 5. The apprehension of learned counsel for the petitioners-Union of India that the direction is to the effect of accepting the application, if we may so, is not found anywhere in the order. It is always open for the petitioners-Union of India to consider the application of the Respondent No. 1 in accordance with the applicable circular operating in the field. 6. Subject to the aforesaid observations, we do not find any merit in this petition and, therefore, the petition is dismissed.