Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Om Prakash Kushwaha v. Union Of India And Others - WRIT - A No. 33175 of 2004 [2007] RD-AH 5131 (22 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).


Hon'ble V.M.Sahai, J

Hon'ble Shishir Kumar, J

The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the orders dated 10.1.2001 and 24.5.2004, Annexures-5 and 9 respectively to this petition.

The petitioner is claiming compassionate appointment on the basis of death of his grand father, who died on 11.11.1991. The Original Application was filed before the Tribunal which was dismissed in default several times and ultimately an application for recall of the order dated 10.1.2001 was moved. The aforesaid application was taken up before the tribunal and the finding to this effect has been recorded by the tribunal that earlier the Original Application had been dismissed in default three times and it was restored on the basis of the application made by the petitioner. Further finding recorded by the tribunal is that the petitioner is claiming appointment under Dying in Harness Rules on the basis of death of his grand father, who died on 11.11.1991.

It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that due to absence of information given by his counsel, the petitioner was not having any knowledge regarding the order dated 10.1.2001. As such the application to recall the order dated 10.1.2001 was wrongly rejected.

The tribunal has rejected the application on the ground that earlier the case was dismissed in default  thrice. After about 16 years the application for compassionate appointment can not be considered even though it had been filed in the year 1992-93 as immediate exigency in the family of the deceased ceased to exist.

In view of the aforesaid facts, we find that no useful purpose will be served in restoring the matter and sending it back to the tribunal for decision on merit.

The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.


WP 33175-04


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


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 |

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