P. Nooka Raju S/O P. Appa Rao v. Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer,

THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY WRIT PETITION No.22572 OF 2006 ORDER: (per Hon'ble Sri Justice Ramesh Ranganathan) This Writ Petition is preferred against the order passed by the Cen Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.290 of 2006 dated 01.08.2006. On ground that he was not found medically fit for appointment as a clerk, petitioner was appointed, on compassionate grounds, as a Safaiwa Aggrieved thereby, he invoked the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.

By the or under challenge in this Writ Petition, the Tribunal held that the case of petitioner was that, at the time of joining Group-D post, he had represented he be given Group-C post for which he was qualified; he claimed to h submitted a representation in this regard at the time of joining the Group-D p he did not produce a copy of such representation; and he had accepted Group-D post without demur. The O.A. was dismissed. Sri K.S. Murthy, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would draw attentio this Court to the specific averment in the O.A. that the petitioner had mad representation on 15.09.2005 and 25.11.2005 (the date "25.11.2005" w added by hand) to the effect that he was initially offered Group-C post, and n he was being given a Safaiwala post.

The petitioner claims to have a enclosed a copy of the representation as Annexure 11 to the O.A. It d appear that the Tribunal has failed to notice the averment that the petitioner submitted a representation claiming that, while he was initially offered Grou post, he was given a Safaiwala post.

Sri R.S. Murthy, Learned Standing Counsel for the Railways, wo contend that no employee can claim compassionate appointment as of ri and in the absence of any right being conferred on an employee to cl appointment on compassionate grounds, and as the petitioner has accepted post of Safaiwala without demur, he is not entitled to now turn around contend that he should have been given a Group-C post on compassion

grounds.

The only ground, on which the O.A. was dismissed by the Tribunal, is the petitioner did not produce a copy of the representation. The Tribunal fa to notice that in the O.A. itself, the petitioner refers to representations hav been submitted on 15.09.2005 and 25.11.2005. As a representation d appear to have been submitted, the order of the Tribunal necessitates being aside. The O.A. is remanded to the Tribunal for its consideration afresh an accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed opinion on the entitlement or otherwise of the petitioner for being appointed a Clerk on compassionate grounds.

Sri K.S. Murthy, Learned Counsel for the petitioner, would refer to cer developments subsequent to the dismissal of the O.A, and seeks liberty to b these facts to the notice of the Tribunal.

Granting liberty as sought for, the Writ Petition is disposed of according The miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand dismissed. _____________________________ RAMESH RANGANATHAN,J __________________________________ M. SATYANARAYANA MURTHY,J Date: 16.04.2015 MRKR