Original Application No. 380 of 2011. Case: Santosh Kumar Yadav Vs The Union of India. Central Administrative Tribunal

Case NumberOriginal Application No. 380 of 2011
CounselFor Appellant: None and For Respondents: Gautam Prasad, Proxy Counsel for S.A. Dharmadhikari, Advocate
JudgesG.P. Singhal, Member (Ad.)
IssueService Law
Judgement DateAugust 25, 2014
CourtCentral Administrative Tribunal


G.P. Singhal, Member (Ad.), (Jabalpur Bench)

  1. The brief facts of the case are that, after death of applicant's father who was working on the post of Durban with the respondent-organization, on 13.11.2005, the applicant filed an application for compassionate appointment on 31.12.2005. This application was taken up for consideration by the respondents three times in 2006, 2007 and 2008 respectively and vide the letter dated 08.04.2009 (Annexure A-8) the applicant was informed that his case has been finally closed. Thereafter, the appeal filed by the applicant has also been dismissed vide the impugned order dated 22.11.2009 (Annexure A-13). As against this, the applicant has filed the present Original Application, which was dismissed earlier, vide the order dated 11.10.2011 with the following observation:-

  2. Indisputably, the father of the applicant died on 13.11.2005 while in employment under the respondents organization. His claim for compassionate appointment was rejected after due consideration in the year 2008. An appeal preferred by the applicant has been further rejected vide the impugned memo Annexure A-13. The applicant has approached the Tribunal in the year 2011 for grant of compassionate appointment with a delay of almost 3 years after his claim was rejected and six years after the death of the father of the applicant. That apart, on close examination of the document of Annexure A-14, we find that the case of the applicant for compassionate appointment was considered and as per merit wise comparative statement of compassionate appointment cases for the year 2006-07, his claim was rejected.

  3. Thus, considering overall facts available on record, we are of the opinion that the case of the applicant has already been considered and rejected by the respondents and there is inordinate delay also in approaching this Tribunal.

  4. The applicant thereafter preferred Writ Petition No. 18266/2011 before the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court wherein, vide the order dated 12.12.2013 the matter has been remanded back to the Tribunal with the following observations:-

    Be it as it may, from the documents available on record, it is seen that the petitioner has filed the application for compassionate appointment before the tribunal for the first time and even though, there was some delay in filing the application and the application for condonation of delay Annexure P-16 before the Tribunal, petitioner has given certain reasons as to why the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT