Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SUDARSHAN SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA THRU SECRETARY & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sudarshan Singh v. Union Of India Thru Secretary & Others - WRIT - A No. 11983 of 2007 [2007] RD-AH 3892 (7 March 2007)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J

Heard Sri Y.S. Bohra, counsel for the petitioner, Dr. K.P. Bajpai counsel for the Union of India- respondent no. 1, Sri C.B. Gupta, counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3 and perused the record.

    Late Kishan Singh, father of the petitioner died in harness on 8.12.2004 while he was posted as Branch Manager in Shreyas Gramin Bank, Aligarh.  

Mother of the petitioner moved an application dated 22.12.2004 before respondent no. 2 for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground under the scheme for appointment on compassionate ground of dependents of deceased employees. The grievance of the petitioner is that his request for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected by respondent no. 3 vide impugned order dated 7.12.2006 on the ground that provision of compassionate appointment has been abolished and replaced by payment of compensation in lieu thereof.  The order dated 17.12.2006 is as under :-

" lUnHkZ la0 ih-,e-,p&52@2778@2006 fnukad 7-12-2006

izfr]

    Jh lqnZ'ku]

    Iqk= Lo0 Jh fd'ku flag]

    Xzke 'kknhiqj dqejkSvk]

    Mk0 xxjh

    ftyk vyhx<

egksn;k]

fo"k; % vuqdEik vk/kkj ij cSad esa fu;qfDr gsrq vkidk vkosnu Ik= fn- 5-10-2006

  vkids lanfHkZr Ik= ds mRrj ij lwfpr djuk gS fd Hkkjr ljdkj Onkjk izkIr funsZ'kksa ds vuqlkj {ks=h; xzkeh.k cSad esa deZpkjh@vf/kdkjh dh lsok dky esa e`R;q ds ekeysa esa vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij e`rd vkfJr dks fu;qfDr iznku djusa dk izo/kku lekIr dj fn;k x;k gs rFkk mlds cnys esa ,d eq'r /kujkf'k dk Hkqxrku djusa dk izko/kku fd;k x;k gS A vr% ge vkids fo"k;kafdr vkosnu ij fopkj djusa esa vleFkZ gSa A

     vr% vkils vuqjks/k gS fd ,d eq'r /kujkf'k iznku dh tkus okyh /kujkf'k ds vkadyu gsrq vkosnu bl Ik= ds lkFk layXu izk#Ik ds vuqlkj okWfNr lwpuk,a ;Fkk'kh/kz miyC/k djk;sa A

                                 Hkonh;

                                g- vifBr

                                 egkizcU?kd"

           Counsel for the petitioner has urged that copy of the circular letter abolishing appointment on compassionate ground issued by the Union of India has not been supplied to the petitioner despite repeated requests made by him as such it may be filed by the respondents in their counter affidavit. He placed reliance on application dated 20.11.2006, appended as Annexure 5 to the writ petition moved by the Secretary to the Shreyas Gramin Bank Employees' Association, Aligarh Unit inter alia stating that the provision for giving  money in lieu of compassionate appointment to the dependent of a deceased employee is not applicable to the Shreyas Gramin Bank as it was not a member of Indian Bank Association.

No other point has been argued by the petitioner.

A bare perusal of Annexure 5 to the writ petition reveals that the Shreyas Gramin Bank Employees' Association, Aligarh  was in possession of the aforesaid circular letter on the bais of which it has been stated that Shreyas Gramin Bank is not a member of Indian Bank Association as such, the aforesaid scheme does not apply to the said Bank.

The contention of counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has not been supplied the copy of the aforesaid instructions issued by Union of India is contrary to what appears from perusal of record.

The scheme has been abolished as such, neither any direction for appointment on compassionate ground can be issued to the respondents nor High court, by order, can direct the respondents to appoint the petitioner.  His case cannot be considered now for compassionate appointment as the scheme for consideration of dependents for compassionate appointment has been abolished and the petitioner does not have any legal right for such relief.. Fishing and roving enquiry only on the mere allegation that copy of circular letter has not been supplied to the petitioner cannot be directed by this Court.

For the reasons stated above, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Dated 7.3.2007

kkb


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.