HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, NAINITAL Writ Petition No.107 of 2003 (S/S) Dinesh Singh Bhandari S/o late Shri Hari Singh Bhandari ……… Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ……… Respondents. Dated:- 30th June, 2010 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Mr. Pankaj Purohit, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Anjali Bhargava, the learned counsel for the respondents. The petitioner’s father was posted as a Sepoy in the Central Ordnance Depot and died on 09.09.1993. On 20th June, 1996, an application was filed by the petitioner for an appointment on compassionate ground under the relevant scheme. On 06th November, 1997, the respondents intimated the petitioner that his application has been kept in the waiting list and that the disposal of his application would take a considerable time since there are a number of candidates senior to the petitioner in the waiting list. By another letter dated 28th January, 2000, the petitioner was informed that his application has been registered at C298 of November 1997, and that the petitioner was intimated that only 5 percent of the vacancies falling under direct recruitment would be available for appointment on compassionate grounds. The petitioner was also intimated that similar other candidates were also waiting for an appointment on compassionate grounds since the year 1992. However, by an order dated 06th December, 2001, the petitioner was informed that the waiting list from 1992 has been cancelled due to the non-availability of the vacancies and that the petitioner’s application could not be registered again for appointment on compassionate ground in view of the new scheme, which has come into force. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present writ petition. 2 Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the court is of the opinion that the action of the respondents is wholly arbitrary. In the first instance, the scheme, which was in existence on the date of the death of the deceased, can only be made applicable and can only be considered for appointment on compassionate ground on the application of the petitioner. The scheme, which subsequently came into existence on 16th May, 2001, a copy of which has been placed before the court today, cannot be taken into consideration since there is nothing to indicate that the scheme would operate retrospectively. Consequently, on this ground, the application of the petitioner could not have been rejected. Further, the court finds that the petitioner’s application has been non-suited from both the sides. Initially, his application could not be considered because there were other candidates whose application were filed prior in point of time and, now, the petitioner’s application has been rejected because it has been kept in consideration for more than a year. In my view, the action of the respondents is totally arbitrary. Once an application is filed, it has to be decided on merits. Consequently, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. A mandamus is issued commanding the respondents to decide the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds on merit on the basis of the scheme which was in existence at the time of the death of the petitioner’s father within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 30.06.2010 LSR