Nandan Singh Koranga v. Union of India

Delhi High Court · 25 May 2022 · 2022:DHC:2045-DB
Sanjeev Sachdeva; Tushar Rao Gedela
W.P.(C) 8289/2022
2022:DHC:2045-DB
administrative petition_allowed

AI Summary

The Delhi High Court directed respondents to implement its earlier order by considering the petitioner's compassionate appointment application and filling any unfilled vacancies within eight weeks.

Full Text
Translation output
W.P.(C) 8289/2022
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
JUDGMENT
delivered on: 25th May, 2022
W.P.(C) 8289/2022 & CM APPL. 24976-77/2022
NANDAN SINGH KORANGA ..... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ramesh Datta and Mr. Mitarth Datta, Advocates
Forthe Respondents: Mr. Mukul Singh, CGSC for R-1 to R-3
CORAM:-
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV SACHDEVA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
JUDGMENT
SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J (Oral)

1. Petitioner impugns order dated 03.10.2019 passed in the original application filed by the petitioner and order dated 22.11.2019 passed in the review application.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact petitioner does not impugn order dated 03.10.2019 but is seeking implementation of the directions issued by the said order dated 03.10.2019. He submits that even after lapse of over 2½ years said order has not been implemented and the application of the petitioner has not been considered for grant on compassionate appointment. 2022:DHC:2045-DB W.P.(C) 8289/2022

3. By order dated 03.10.2019, respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioner along with other candidates as per the rules in force at the relevant time and as and when vacancy arose for grant on compassionate appointment, the same be granted.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as on 2015 there were three vacancies and further vacancies have arisen but all have remained unfilled.

5. This is disputed by learned counsel for the respondent. He however, is not in a position to state as to whether there are any unfilled vacancies still remained or not.

6. Be that as it may, we direct that in case there are any remaining unfilled vacancies, respondent shall process the case of the petitioner as also of the other eligible applicants in accordance with the rules and consider filling up of the unfilled vacancies within a period of 8 weeks from today.

7. In case there are no remaining vacancies, the cases be considered expeditiously as and when the vacancies so arise.

8. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.

SANJEEV SACHDEVA, J TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J MAY 25, 2022/‘rs’