BHARATSANCHARNIGAMLTD. & ORS v. SH. RAKESHKUMAR

1. Challengeii|thiswrh|etit^^^fe|]^derdge 14.03.&16passedby the Central ^ 'the Tribunal') Darshan al,who waseniployed;|in&T||Jj|et^ standspartlyallowed.

2. Mr.Sinha,learned counsel for tlie petitioners submits that the Tribunal has exceeded itsjurisdiction and has failed to take into accountthat the father ofthe applicant had expired on 01.08.2006. His son had applied for appointment on compassionate ground for the first time in the year 2010,which wasrejected bythe respondenton 26.10.2010. He submits thatthe application wasrejected as the petitioner had taken into account thatthe applicant was married and furtherthe applicantdid not meetthe criteria laid down for compassionate appointment. Mr. Sinha submits thatthe respondentthereafter made arepresentation in the year2011-12. W.P.(C).6650/2016 Page[1] of[3] 2016:DHC:8806-DB Therepresentations wererejected inthe year2014. Counselsubmitsthat the Tribunal has failed to take into consideration the settled law and the judgments reported in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State ofHaryana & Ors., reported in JT 1994(3) SC 525; LIC of India v. Ms. Asha Ramchandra Ambedkar & Ors., reported in JT 1994(2) SC 183' Haryana Electricity Board and Am. v. Hakim Singh, reported in 199^(1)SLJ114SCand Sanjay Kumar v.State ofBihar,reported in 2000(7)see192.

3. Counsel further contends that the family ofthe deceased are living in theirancestralhouse asperthe guidelines ofthepetitionersforg^anfih^'c6nipassidnate''app The underl^iQ^inciple'«^g|^te ap^i^t to a family member of|k oSvemment in hamSi&o ensure that the family|members get at the appropriat|time and to relievethe|imilyoftheem|ig|^efie|n^emedfromfmaniial destitution arid to help itfget oye'E^fib^emer^eri^ // We find that tH'e^^i^pnMih^^^ only is^ed'"a^f^Mlpn to the petitioner hereinto consider^K^slgjthffijespoMf^^ 11 ofthe orderreads as under:

11. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned letters/orders dated 26.10.2010 and 19.8.2014(/Z>iJ) are quashed. The respondents are directed to reconsiderthe applicant's case,along with other cases,for appointment on compassionate grounds on the basis ofpoints awarded to those cases,and as perthe priority list maintained by them. It is made clear that the respondent- BSNL,while considering the case ofthe applicant,shalltakeinto account 62 net points already awarded to his case. The respondents shall take appropriate decision in the case of the applicant,and communicatetheirdecision tothe applicant within three monthsfrom today." Page2of[3]

7. While we find no grounds to interfere in the order passed by the Tribunal,however,we clarifythattherequestofthe respondentshallbe considered bythepetitionersympathetically andintermsofparagraph[2] ofthe Scheme for Compassionate Appointment and all other relevant factors,includingthementalconditionofthemotheroftheapplicant.

8. Mr. Sinha seeks extension of time to comply with the order of the Tribunal and to take an appropriate decision. The Tribunal had granted three monthstime to the petitionerfrom the order ofthe Tribunal dated 14.03.2016 to comply with the order. We extend the time by two

9. monthsfrom today. Thewritpetition|tands=d^^^d^accbrk^ly/^^ '5k // ft f // w }i fm\ !%■.411 QiS.SISTANI,J AUGUST 01, pst ■ ^ MEHTA, j lc| Page 3 of[3]