Sukhwinder Singh v. Cat, Chd Bench And ORS

CWP No. 12646 of 2011 (O&M)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 12646 of 2011 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION :- January 07, 2016 Sukhwinder Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

The Central Administrative Tribunal Chandigarh Bench.

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JEYAPAUL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ MOHAN SINGH Present:- Mr. K.L. Kohli, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vikram Anand, Advocate for respondents no. 2 to 6. *** 1.

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

Yes/No 2.

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

Yes/No 3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? Yes/No M.JEYAPAUL, J.

1.

The petitioner challenged before the Tribunal the impugned order passed by the 3rd respondent herein rejecting the claim for compassionate appointment on the sole ground that the application submitted by the petitioner was placed before the common Committee on compassionate appointment beyond the period of three years. The Tribunal having adverted to the order impugned made an observation that the impugned order was passed PARVINDER SINGH 2016.01.12 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CWP No. 12646 of 2011 (O&M) by the 3rd respondent herein only in accordance with law. 2.

When the matter came up for hearing on 17.9.2015, we directed U.T. Chandigarh to consider the plea for compassionate appointment made by the petitioner without adverting to the period of limitation, as it was found that there was no fault on the part of the petitioner in approaching U.T. Chandigarh seeking compassionate appointment on the death of his father. Pursuant to the above order passed by us, a detailed speaking order was passed by the 5th respondent herein on 6.1.2016 rejecting the claim for compassionate appointment made by the petitioner.

3.

Inasmuch the 5th respondent has passed an elaborate speaking order afresh on merit without adverting to the period of limitation as directed by us, the petitioner if at all aggrieved, has to challenge the same. Under the above facts and circumstances, giving liberty to the petitioner to challenge the detailed order passed afresh by the 5th respondent on 6.1.2016, the Writ Petition stands dismissed.

(M. JEYAPAUL) JUDGE (RAJ MOHAN SINGH) JUDGE January 07, 2016 p.singh PARVINDER SINGH 2016.01.12 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh