CWP-5998-2019 (OM) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Date of decision : 6.3.2019
Anuruch Yadav ……. Petitioner
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.
(RAJIV SHARMA) (KULDIP SINGH)
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes
Whether Reportable: Yes
3 of 3
10-03-2019 12:19:36 :::