IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11358 of 2007 Akhilesh Kumar Ram, son of late Moti Lal Ram, resident of Village Chela, P.O. Sandesh, District Bhojpur, Bihar-802164. ------- Petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, New Delhi. 2. Commanding Officer, General Reserve Engineering Force (GREF), Digghi Camp., Puna-15. 3. The Secretary, Department of Post and Telegraph, Ministry of Telecommunication, New Delhi. --------- Respondents ----------- 2 7.4.2011 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application, reading as follows:- “1(i) For issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the memo no. 1456/03/76/E-1 Recruitment dated 15.4.05 whereby the petitioner has been denied compassionate appointment on ground that the rules have since changed. (ii) For issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent authorities to make compassionate appointment in GREF based on policy as standing on the date of boarding out of his father Pioneer Moti Lal Ram i.e. June, 1995.” relates to appointment on compassionate ground created on account of exigency of 2 medical incapacity of the father of the petitioner. The respondent in the impugned order has rejected such claim of the petitioner by assigning the following reasons:- ^^vkidk dsl esa vkids firk ,Dl th,l&99523 eksrh yky jke 29 twu 1995 esa esfMdy cksMZ vkmV gqvk Fkk rFkk vki vius fy;s d:.kk eqyd vk/kkj ij HkrhZ gsrw vkosnu i= fnukad twykbZ 2002 dks bl dk;kZy; esa Hkstk Fkk tks fd 07 o"kZ 01 ekg ds le; O;frr gksus ds ckn izkIr gqvk rFkk@ vr% d:.kk eqyad vk/kkj ij fu;wfDr gsrq vkidk dsl ljdkj dh ubZ uhfr ds vUrxZr ugha vkrk gSA vr% vkids dsl esa d:.kk eqyd vk/kkj ij fu;wfDr gsrw dksbZ dkjZokbZ djus esa ;g dk;kZy; vleFkZ gSA d`i;k bl ekeys dks vki cUn le>saA** Mr. Mrigank Mauli, learned counsel for the petitioner has taken this Court to number of communications being made by the respondents themselves beginning from 6th October, 1995 (Annexure-2) which would go to show that the petitioner had filed his application in the prescribed proforma for appointment on compassionate ground. The matter, thereafter, seems to have remained pending for removing certain discrepancies as would again be apparent from different letters sent by the Army authority to the petitioner. It appears that in the meantime, a new policy of compassionate appointment came into force which had prescribed a new 3 format and new proforma. The petitioner was asked to fill up the same and the petitioner did so by producing the same. Such removal of defects or filing of fresh application on account of revision of the scheme in compassionate appointment will not mean that the petitioner had not filed his application for compassionate appointment and, to that extent, it is the letter dated 6th October, 1995 (Annexure-2), which would be an admission of the fact that the case of compassionate appointment of the petitioner was pending before the Army authorities from the year 1995 itself. Once this conclusion is reached by this Court, the solitary ground of rejection of the case of the petitioner has to be held as non-est and non-existent, inasmuch as, the specific statement of the petitioner in this regard in paragraph no.30 & 31 reading as follows:- “30. That it is submitted that the letter dated 15.4.2005 is wholly unjust and arbitrary as it wrongly states that the petitioner’s application was made in the year 2002 whereas the original application had been made in the 4 year June, 1996 itself. It is further submitted that the respondent authorities have totally overlooked the original application form, submitted for compassionate appointment. It is submitted that for reasons best known to them they had reinitiated, afresh, of the process of compassionate appointment of the petitioner by sending fresh set of application form by their letter dated 14.2.2002. 31. That the various annexures appended to this writ application are proof of the fact that the application by the petitioner, complete in all respects, have been received by the GREF Centre by 1999 and the annexures are proof of the fact that the application of the petitioner was not submitted in the year 2002 but had been given within the period of limitation of one year as stated in the letter dated 15.4.2005 and as such the petitioner is entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment.” has not even controverted by the respondents in their counter affidavit though they have chosen to answer all other statements in the counter affidavit. In that view of the matter, this 5 Court will have no option but, to hold that the impugned order is absolutely unsustainable either on fact or in law is fit to be quashed inasmuch as the solitary reason for rejection of the application filed by the petitioner for compassionate appointment being either belated or barred by limitation by a period of more than seven years is contrary to the materials on record and must be held to be bad. This Court therefore having held the impugned order to be bad would quash the same and remit the matter back to the authorities to re-consider the case of the petitioner by treating his earlier application dated 23.12.1996 for his compassionate appointment to be pending. It is also made clear that the subsequent application filed by the petitioner in the prescribed revised proforma would also be deemed to be in continuation with the earlier application filed by the petitioner and this time, the competent authority will not reject the case of the petitioner on any technical ground including delay or limitation and must decide the same 6 on merits. Since the petitioner is agitating this matter for appointment on compassionate ground for last fifteen years, it would auger well in the interest of justice to also direct the respondents to dispose of such claim of the petitioner of compassionate ground by passing a reasoned order within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. With the aforementioned observations and direction, this application is allowed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)