High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Naveen Kumar v. JVR Prasada Rao & Ors - COCP-306-2004  RD-P&H 1099 (22 February 2006)
COCP 306 of 2004
Date of decision 6.3.2006
Naveen Kumar .. petitioner
JVR Prasada Rao and others .. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
PRESENT: Mr.Arun Takhi , Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Girish Agnihotri, Advocate for the respondents M.M.Kumar, J.
A Division Bench of this Court on 25.8.2003 while disposing of CWP No.
5326 of 2002 has issued a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case and the observations made by the Division Bench in the afore-mentioned judgement. A period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of that order was fixed. According to the observations made by the Division Bench, the case of the petitioner could not be rejected merely on the ground that elder brother of the petitioner is working as Senior Scale Stenographer in the Post Graduate Institute, Chandigarh and that factor alone was not to constitute the basis to reject the claim of the petitioner. It was further observed that in para 10(a) of the instructions dated 9.10.1998 there are various factors which are required to be taken into account for appointment of a dependent of deceased on compassionate grounds. It was also observed that the afore-mentioned instructions do not debar the appointment of a dependent of the deceased on COCP 306 of 2004 .2.
compassionate ground merely because one of the children is already in the employment.
In support of the afore-mentioned conclusion, judgements of various Courts were also cited in the order.
When the matter came up for consideration on 30.8.2005, this Court has rejected the purported order passed by respondent no.1 as it rehabilitated those very grounds which were rejected by the Division Bench. Those grounds were sought to be reintroduced and rehabilitated in the order Annexure R/1/3 passed on 5.4.2004. On 28.11.2005, the Director of the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh was also permitted to be impleaded as respondent no.2. Thereafter a reply was filed stating that the competent authority to consider the case of compassionate appointment was Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi. In support of the afore-mentioned claim, para 10 of the instructions dated 9.10.1998 was cited by the respondent. It was further claimed that vide letter dated 25.1.2006 the case of the petitioner had been forwarded to the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi with the recommendation for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate grounds as per para 10 of the instructions. The hearing of the petition was deferred on 6.2.2006 to this date.
An application has been filed by the respondents for placing on record a copy of the order dated 2.3.2006 passed by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, New Delhi whereby the claim made by the petitioner has been rejected by taking into account various factors as contemplated by Clause 10 of the instructions dated 9.10.1998.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the order dated 2.3.2006 I am of the considered view that no case for continuation of contempt COCP 306 of 2004 .3.
proceedings is made out. The directions issued by the Division Bench of this Court on 25.8.2003 stands complied with. If the petitioner is still aggrieved by the afore- mentioned order, he may challenge the same at an appropriate forum. Rule discharged.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.