SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Anuruch Yadav vs Union Of India And Ors on 6 March, 2019

CWP-5998-2019 (OM) -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-5998-2019 (OM)
Date of decision : 6.3.2019

Anuruch Yadav ……. Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others ……. Respondents

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHARMA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDIP SINGH

Present:- Mr. Snehdip Oberoy, Advocate for the petitioner.

KULDIP SINGH, J.

Petitioner has impugned the order dated 14.9.2016 (Annexure

P-6), passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench,

Chandigarh (for short ‘the Tribunal’), vide which the original application i.e.

OA No., 060/00830/2016, titled as ‘Anuruch Yadav Vs. Union of India and

others’, filed by the petitioner seeking direction to respondent-department

to consider his case for appointment on compassionate grounds has been

dismissed in limine.

The short facts which are required to be noticed are that

according to the applicant-petitioner, his father-Bharat Lal was working as a

Group-D employee in Post Office with respondents. He died in harness on

2.12.2002. At that time, applicant-petitioner was minor and family pension

was sanctioned to him. He attained the age of majority on 11.12.2011. He

submitted an application before the respondent-department for appointment

1 of 3
10-03-2019 12:19:35 :::
CWP-5998-2019 (OM) -2-

on compassionate grounds as he is the only legal heir of his father and has

no source of income expect the family pension. He made several

representations but respondents has failed to finalize his case for

appointment on compassionate grounds and grant him service.

We have learned counsel for the petitioner and have carefully

gone through the case file.

A copy of the order dated 31.10.2005 (Annexure P-1) passed

by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-cum-Guardian Judge, Bathinda goes

to show that in an application filed under Section 7 of the Guardian and

Wards Act, 1980 (for short ‘the Act’), it was pleaded that deceased-Bharat

Lal was unmarried and that he had adopted the applicant-petitioner namely

Anuruch Yadav when he was only two months old. This fact was no where

stated in the petition. In this way, the fact that deceased-Bharat Lal was

unmarried and that applicant-petitioner is the adopted son of the deceased-

Bharat Lal was concealed. Family pension payment order has not been

annexed with the present petition. Bharat Lal died on 2.12.2002 and the

application under Section 7 of the Act for appointing Bal Mukand Yadav as

guardian of Anuruch Yadav (titled as ‘Balmukand Yadav vs. General

Public’) was filed on 3.4.2003 which was decided on 31.10.2005 by learned

Civil Judge (Sr. Division), cum-Guardian Judge, Bathinda. The case was

filed against general public. On merits also, it is noticed that according to

the applicant-petitioner, he became major on 11.12.2011. He has not placed

on file the representation made by him except one representation made on

26.3.2016 (Annexure A-1). The application before the Tribunal was filed

2 of 3
10-03-2019 12:19:36 :::
CWP-5998-2019 (OM) -3-

after 14 years of the death of the employee.

The Tribunal has rightly observed that the purpose of the

compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over sudden crisis

and to relieve the family from financial destitution. It is to meet the

emergency created by the untimely death of the employee in service and

cannot be used to provide employment by back door entry. Even the

applicant-petitioner became major on 11.12.2011 and for five years he

remained silent. According to the order dated 31.10.2005 passed by learned

Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-cum-Guardian Judge, Bathinda, applicant-

petitioner was adopted by the deceased-Bharat Lal, who was unmarried,

when the applicant-petitioner was two months old only. The facts speak for

itself and need no comments from this Court.

There is no illegality or infirmity in the order dated 14.9.2016

(Annexure P-6), passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh

Bench, Chandigarh declining the prayer of the applicant-petitioner for his

appointment on compassionate grounds on account of death of Bharat Lal

stated to be his adopted father.

Dismissed.

(RAJIV SHARMA) (KULDIP SINGH)
JUDGE JUDGE

6.3.2019
preeti
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes
Whether Reportable: Yes

3 of 3
10-03-2019 12:19:36 :::

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Not found ...? HOW TO WIN 498a, DV, DIVORCE; Search in Above link

All Law documents and Judgment copies
Laws and Bare Acts of India
Landmark SC/HC Judgements
Rules and Regulations of India.

STUDY REPORTS

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation