Rakesh Kumar Ranjan v. The Union Of India And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12296 of 2016 =========================================================== Rakesh Kumar Ranjan, son of Late Krishna Prasad, resident of Village- Baghpur, P.S. - Parsa Bazar, District-Patna .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The Union of India through the Commissioner, Central Excise Department , Government of India, Patna

2. The Commissioner, Central Excise Department, Government of India Patna

3. The Joint Commissioner, (P & V), Central Excise (H), Central Excise Department, Government of India, Patna

4. The Assistant Commissioner (Establishment), Central Excise and Custom Department (H.Q.), Government of India, Patna

5. The Assistant Commissioner, Central Excise and Custom Department, Motihari, West Champaran .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anuj Dilbar Krishna, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. S.D. Sanjay, ASG Mr. Anshay Bahadur Mathur, CGC =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI and HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI) Date: 27-02-2017 Heard counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Solicitor General for the Union of India. Since the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna has refused to give any direction for compassionate appointment in favour of the applicant, who is the petitioner before this Court, the writ has been filed. The order is dated 29.11.2012, passed in O.A. No. 752 of 2012.

Bereft of all the details, the objection and submission

Patna High Court CWJC No.12296 of 2016 dt.27-02-2017 2/2 of the Additional Solicitor General that no direction/ order ought to be issued by interfering with the decision of the Tribunal keeping in view that the death of the employee happened in the year 2000 and 17 years has gone past, therefore, the claim for compassionate appointment ought not to be ordered or entertained, seems to have a legal basis. Since the object of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate relief to the family on death of the bread earner and 17 years has gone past since then, the object behind compassionate appointment has been lost. In view of the same, the refusal by the Tribunal, whatever be the rationale and reasoning for not passing an order in favour of the petitioner, is not misplaced. Writ is dismissed.

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) (Nilu Agrawal, J) Rajesh/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 01.03.2017 Transmission Date NA