Ram Sagar Chaudhary and Another Vs The Union of India and Others

Patna High Court 26 Mar 2007 CWJC No. 7674 of 2005 (2007) 03 PAT CK 0167
Bench: Single Bench

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

CWJC No. 7674 of 2005

Hon'ble Bench

Navin Sinha, J

Advocates

Harendra Pratap Singh, for the Appellant; Kaushal Kumar Jha For the Union of India, for the Respondent

Judgement Text

Translate:

@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER

Navin Sinha, J.@mdashHeard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the Union of India. The petitioners are son and widow respectively of one Ramayan Choudhary, who was deceased on 17.12.1993 while posted as Head Constable in the Border Security Force.

2. It is not in controversy that the petitioner No. 2 applied for appointment of her son, petitioner No. 1, on compassionate ground within time. It appears from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents that the claim of the petitioner ho. 1 came to be rejected on 22.3.2004 due to his physical unfitness as he could not meet the requirements for chest measurement upon expansion. Nonetheless the respondents in March 2005 have sent an offer to petitioner No. 2 for appointment on compassionate ground at the M.I. Room of 74 Bn, BSF.

3. Submission made on behalf of the petitioners is that the petitioner No. 2 is by now much advanced in age and not in a position to avail the benefit of compassionate appointment because of her own physical limitations. The petitioner No. 1 was therefore willing to accept such appointment as the respondents may offer including the appointment offered to petitioner No. 2.

4. Counsel for the respondents submits that this aspect of the matter will have to be examined and the case of petitioner No. 1 for appointment on the post offered to his mother will have to be considered in accordance with the regulations, need and nature of the job. This Court therefore considers it proper to dispose-off this writ application with a liberty to the petitioner No. 1 to approach the respondents with a request to consider his case for appointment on compassionate ground on the post offered to his mother vide letter dated 4.3.2005. It goes without saying that the respondents shall obviously be at liberty to consider the same on the basis of the grounds as urged by the Counsel for the respondents. This Court expects that the respondents shall consider the case of the petitioner No. 1 in accordance with law within a period of four months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order.

From The Blog
Silent Threat to Family Wealth: How Lack of Inheritance Planning Fuels Court Battles in India
Dec
03
2025

Court News

Silent Threat to Family Wealth: How Lack of Inheritance Planning Fuels Court Battles in India
Read More
Allahabad High Court Orders Probe into Christian Converts Retaining SC Status, Calls It Fraud on Constitution
Dec
03
2025

Court News

Allahabad High Court Orders Probe into Christian Converts Retaining SC Status, Calls It Fraud on Constitution
Read More