PATNA HIGH COURT ISSUES JUDGMENT ON RAM PRAGASH RAI V/S THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

PATNA, India, Feb. 14 -- Patna High Court issued the following judgment on Jan. 13:

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the Union of India and learned counsel for the respondent no. 6.

2. The petitioner has filed the instant application for the following relief:

"That by this Writ application is being filed by the petitioner seeks indulgence of this Hon'ble court for issuance of writ in nature of mandamus and directing and commanding the respondent authorities for issuance of the compassionate appointment letter in favour of petitioner, earlier appointment proceeding was initiated before Govt. Complaint Redressal Centre, Eastern Railway, Sonpur and thus complaint Registered no. SADHI/1/niyukti/06627.8.01 and further prayed that for direction of the respondents authorities to produced the appointment letter and after hearing the case Your Lordships may pleased to cancel the illegal appointment of Res. No. 5 Whereby and whereunder the respondent no. 5 who has very clever and collusion of the concern authorities have fraudently managed the office concern for illegal appointment of as designated post of IV grade employee. And any other relief/reliefs for which the petitioner is found to be entitled in the eye of law."

3. The father of the petitioner and respondent no. 6 namely Lakshman Rai who was working in the Eastern Railways at Sonpur died in harness on 6.1.1997. Pursuant to the same, applications were filed by the petitioner as also the respondent no. 6 for appointment on compassionate ground.

4. It transpires that by order dated 21.2.2003, the respondent no. 6 was appointed on compassionate ground.

5. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner who happens to be the eldest son of the deceased employee was better qualified for appointment. Further in reference to the affidavit sworn by his mother and brought on record as Annexure-5 to the writ application, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application of the petitioner was recommended by his mother on affidavit for his appointment. However, the petitioner was surprised that subsequently in the year 2003, the respondent no. 6 came to be appointed.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that though the appointment took place in February 2003, not having any knowledge about the appointment, he could file the writ application only in the year 2017. As such, it is prayed that the appointment of respondent no. 6 (wrongly mentioned as respondent no. 5 in paragraph no. 1) be cancelled and the petitioner be appointed in his place.

7. The application is opposed by learned counsel appearing for the Union of India as also the respondent no. 6.

8. Learned counsel appearing for the Union of India submits that the writ application is fit to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. It is further submitted in reference to the statement made in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 5 as also the affidavit of the mother of the petitioner and respondent no. 6 dated 3.10.2020 i.e. after filing of the present writ application, which is to the effect that the mother of the petitioner was in favour of the younger son i.e. respondent no. 6 being appointed on compassionate ground.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MTUjMTY1MTMjMjAxNyMxI04=-EXf3321JGvg=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.