Manoj Kumar v. Union Of India And ORS

CWP-9060-2017 -1HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-9060-2017 Date of Decision: May 01, 2017 Manoj Kumar .....Petitioner

Versus

Union of India and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA 1.

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

Yes/No 2.

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No.

3.

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No .......

Present:

Mr.Narender Pal Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner.

........

SURYA KANT, J.

Claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment was concededly rejected on 09.09.1999 when he had already attained the age of majority. For 16 years the petitioner did nothing except to sit at home. On 22.06.2015, Uttariya Railway Mazdoor Union is said to have taken up his cause and submitted another application to consider his claim for appointment on compassionate ground. That application was also turned down. It is thereafter that the petitioner unsuccessfully approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity, 'the Tribunal').

[2] We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at a considerable length and do not find any merit in this writ petition. Meenu 2017.05.10 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh

CWP-9060-2017 -2- [3] Besides inordinate delay of 16-17 years in approaching the Court, the petitioner has miserably failed to show any mitigating circumstances to warrant immediate assistance to the family. Further the petitioner claimed appointment on compassionate ground due to the death of his adopted father who was, in fact, his grand-father. It is claimed that petitioner's grand-father had adopted him in a Panchayat on 12.01.1997. The adopted father was a Government employee. Yet he did not deem it appropriate to execute a formal adoption-deed. The facts and circumstances of the case do not inspire confidence with regard to the genuineness of adoption.

[4] No case to interfere with the Tribunal's order is made out. [5] Dismissed.

( SURYA KANT ) JUDGE May 01, 2017 ( SUDIP AHLUWALIA ) meenuss JUDGE 1.

Whether speaking/reasoned ?

Yes/No 2.

Whether reportable ?

Yes/No Meenu 2017.05.10 15:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document chandigarh