IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.14184 of 2010
MANOJ KUMAR SON OF LATE K.D. JHA, R/O VILLAGE-RAIPURA,
P.O. AND P.S. FATWAH, DISTRICT-PATNA..................PETITIONER
Versus
1. THE UNION OF INDIA THRU THE CHIEF SECRETARY, HOME
MINISTRY, NEW DELHI.
2. THE DIRECTOR, CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, BLOCK
NO.3, 4TH FLOOR, C.G.O. COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI.
3. THE COMMITTEE OF COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT AND ITS
MEMBERS AND OFFICE BEARERS AT CENTRAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION, BLOCK NO.3, 4TH FLOOR C.G.O. COMPLEX,
LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI.
4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR (ADMN.) CENTRAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION, BLOCK NO.3, 4TH FLOOR C.G.O. COMPLEX,
LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI.
5. THE SUPEINTENDENT OF POLICE (H.Q), CENTRAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION, BLOCK NO.3, 4TH FLOOR C.G.O. COMPLEX,
LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI. ..................................RESPONDENTS
-----------
For the petitioner :- Mr.Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
For the CBI:- Mr. Bipin Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For Union of India:- Mr.Md.Abu Haider, CGC
———-
04/ 29-Sep-2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner,
learned counsel for CBI and learned counsel for the
Union of India.
2. Petitioner’s father was a Private Secretary
in Central Bureau of Investigation (‘CBI’ for brevity),
Head Office, New Delhi. He applied for retirement on
medical ground on 12.02.2002 and was allowed to
retire on the recommendation of the Medical Board on
31.7.2002. Immediately thereafter, an application was
2
filed for compassionate appointment of the petitioner.
Although, the Rule did not permit consideration for
compassionate appointment where a Government
servant was retired after attaining the age of 55 years,
the fact that petitioner’s father was retired at the age of
56 years and 25 days on medical ground was ignored
and the authorities considered the case of the petitioner
in the meeting held on 27.02.2004. The Selection
Committee did not select the petitioner as it found the
cases of six other candidates to be more deserving for
compassionate appointment.
3. The learned Tribunal by the impugned
order dated 29.08.2006 dismissed O.A. No.678/2005
preferred by the petitioner after calling for and perusing
the comparative chart containing details of the
petitioner’s case and that of other candidates.
4. After perusal of the said chart the
Tribunal has recorded that it found no ground to
interfere.
5. Before us also issue of fact was raised that
on facts petitioner’s case should have been held to be
more deserving. We are not persuaded to go into
3
determination of issues of fact after the Tribunal has
recorded its satisfaction with the decision of the
authorities.
6. It may incidentally be mentioned that the
Tribunal rejected the claim of the petitioner in August
2006 whereas this writ petition has been filed in August
2010. The stamp reporting in this writ petition indicates
that it was initially presented in January 2010 but was
kept defective and was resubmitted after a long delay
of more than six months. There is also an explanation
in the writ petition that earlier a writ petition was filed
bearing CWJC No. 1028 of 2006 but the same was not
pursued and ultimately after about three years, on
enquiry that was found to be writ petition preferred by
another person and was disposed of on 17.01.2007. A
plea was taken that the earlier writ petition might have
been numbered differently and it was claimed that
Token No. 17163 of 2006 was issued on account of
filing of the earlier writ petition on 18.12.2006. This
fact could not be verified in spite of best efforts made
by the office.
7. We would not like to dwell upon this
4
matter any further because on merits, we do not find it
an appropriate case to be interfered with. The same is
dismissed accordingly.
( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)
(Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J.)
perwez