Anil Kumar Sharma v. Union of India & Ors.

1. By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner seeks issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to appoint him as a Class III employee in the position of Assistant Sub-Inspector or Class II to which he is eligible instead of Class IV employee. The petitioner is the son of Late Sh.B Raj Dayal Rai who was employed with the Border Security Force (BSF) and unfortunately suffered injury which required his discharge on 26th April, 1982 from service of the Force.

2. On attaining age of 18 years, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment with the Border Security Force on 7th October 1988 which was followed by issuance of several reminders. It is undisputed before us that sometime in August, 2004, the 2013:DHC:5592-DB petitioner was offered a post of Water Carrier on compassionate basis with the BSF which he accepted. After accepting the appointment the petitioner submits that he has been making representations that he was entitled to an appointment in a class III post as against appointment of Class IV, which had been accepted by him. We may note that the petitioner was also seeking retrospective service benefit from 1988 when he had first applied for appointment on compassionate grounds.

3. Inasmuch as the respondents failed to favourably consider the same, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) 6957/2005 in this court which was seeking the above benefits. This writ petition was dismissed by the court vide an order passed on 25th April, 2005, the operative part of which reads as follows: “In support of his demands it is not shown, at any stage, his entitlement. He also claims that he should have been appointed to Class III post instead of Class IV post. This petition on the face of it appears to be a charter of demands than an enforcement of any rights suffering from any rules or law which in our view can be accorded consideration by the Competent Authority of BSF. Petition is dismissed with observations that in case petitioner makes any representation to the Director General of BSFraising any of his legitimate demands, it be considered and decided under law.”

4. The issue of entitlement to appointment as a Class III employee or the other relief noted above stood concluded by the above order.

5. The petitioner thereafter claims to have filed representation to the respondents in purported compliance of the directions by the court. The petitioner even served a legal notice dated 9th May, 2005 reiterating the above demands which stood rejected by the court order. The respondents proceeded to initially decide these representations vide order dated 24th October, 2007 informing the petitioner as follows: