IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 652 of 2009
Amit Ranjan Kachhap ...... Petitioner
Versus
The Union of India & ors. ...... Respondents
---------
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE D.N.PATEL
———
For the petitioner: Mr. Sumit Gadodia, Advocate
For the Union of India: Mr. Md. Mokhtar Khan, Advocate
———
02. th
Dated 12 May, 2009
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the
present petition has been preferred for getting
compassionate appointment, because the father of the
petitioner, who was serving with the respondents, expired
on August 2, 2006. Mother of the petitioner has applied for
getting compassionate appointment of a suitable member
of the family on April 16, 2007, but, thereafter, no final
decision has yet been taken and, therefore, let this petition
be treated as a representation and the same may be
decided by respondent no.2, within a stipulated time, and
after taking decision, if it goes against the petitioner, a
liberty may be reserved with the petitioner to challenge the
same before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ranchi.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the respondents, who has
submitted that they have no much objection, if such a
direction is given to the respondents to treat this writ
petition as a representation and to decide the same, in
accordance with law, rules, regulations and policies, within
a stipulated time.
3. In view of the aforesaid submissions, I hereby direct
respondent no.2 to treat this writ petition as a
representation and to decide the same, in accordance with
law, rules, regulations, policies and the legally enforceable
government orders, which are applicable to the petitioner
or to the late husband of the petitioner, after giving an
adequate opportunity of being heard to the petitioner or to
the representative of the petitioner, as expeditiously as
possible and practicable, preferably within a period of
sixteen weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the
order, passed by this Court. Respondent no.2 shall pass a
speaking order and if it goes against the petitioner, liberty
2.
is reserved with the petitioner to challenge the same before
the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ranchi.
4. The writ petition stands disposed of, in view of the
aforesaid directions.
(D.N.Patel, J.)
A.K.Verma/