ORDER
Khem Karan, J. (Vice Chairman)
1. The applicant, Anil Kumar “(Kureel)”, has prayed for quashing order dated 21.2.2004 (Annexure 1) by which General Manager, Small Arms Factory, Kanpur declined to give him compassionate appointment under Dying in Harness Rules and for directing them to consider him for such appointment.
2. There is no dispute that applicant’s father namely late Dhani Ram was the employee of the respondents and he died on 19.3.2002, while still in service, leaving behind him the applicant and others as mentioned in para 4 (3) of the O.A. There is further no dispute that applicant gave application 3.4.2002 (copy of which is Annexure 4) for giving him compassionate appointment in accordance with relevant Rules regulating such appointments. It appears that respondent No. 2 sent a letter dated 21.2.2004 to the applicant informing him that under Rules such appointments was not possible.
2. The applicant is challenging this letter on several grounds and one of the grounds is that it is non-speaking. Respondents have filed reply explaining as to how the case of the applicant was not found fit for such appointment.
3. I have heard the parties counsel and perused the record. Shri Raj Kumar Verma, learned Counsel for the applicant has contended that impugned letter/order dated 21.2.2004 being non reasoned and non speaking, deserves to be quashed on this ground alone. He submits that in such cases where a person is entitled for consideration of his case for compassionate appointment under Dying In Harness Rules, the order refusing to give such appointment should reflects full application of mind of the Authority concerned and should contend the reason and so to lead the person knows as to why his case could not find favour with the Authorities Concerned. Learned Counsel says that there can be no dispute such order is subject to judicial review by the Courts or Tribunals and so from this angle as well, it should be speaking and reasoned and so Tribunals or Courts may examine as to whether any error was committed in coming to the decision in question.
4. Shri R.P. Singh, learned Counsel for the respondents has argued that such an order need not contained more reason then given in the impugned order dated 21.2.2004. He has also tried to say that the entire reasons have been given in the written reply and so letter/order dated 21.2.2004 should not be interfered with on this ground, it does not give more reason.
5. I think if order/letter dated 21.2.2004 is non-speaking or non-reasoned and is not good in law for the reason, any reply or material will not make it good. It has stand or fall on its own and cannot be supplied any basis from outside so as to stand. The order/letter dated 21.2.2004 is totally non-speaking and cryptic one. One more opportunity is given to the respondents, as to why the case of the applicant for compassionate appointment has been rejected. The applicant was entitled to know the reason for rejecting his claim. It is true that no detailed reasons are expected from the Executive Authorities but was not given the reason as to apprise the person that his case was duly considered.
6. So, order/letter dated 21.2.2004 by which the respondents turned down the request of the applicant for compassionate appointment is hereby quashed with a direction to the respondent No. 2 to re-consider the applicant’s case and pass suitable speaking order in regard to his claim for compassionate appointment, within a period of three months from the date of certified copy of the order is produced before him.
7. With the above direction, the O.A. is disposed of but with no order as to costs.
