2016 (7) TMI 72 - HC - Indian Laws

Compassionate appointment of assessee s son rejected - non-speaking order - scheme to provide employment under compassionate category - application for giving employment to her son - Held that - While rejecting the application, the authority has not indicated any reason much less justifiable reason. It is not sufficient to mention that the case of the petitioner would not come under the scheme. The department should point out the actual reasons for rejecting the application. In fact, an attempt was made by the respondents to improve the case by giving certain particulars in the counter statement. However, the impugned order does not contain any such reasons. The first respondent has clearly admitted in his counteraffidavit that the retirement was on medical ground. This aspect was not considered while rejecting the application. Therefore, of the view that the issue requires fresh consideration by the second respondent. In the result, the impugned memorandum dated 18 October, 2011, is set aside. The second respondent is directed to consider the application submitted by the petitioner for compassionate appointment to her son on merits and in accordance with the relevant Scheme. While considering the application, necessarily, the second respondent should also consider the admission given in the counteraffidavit filed by the first respondent to the effect that the retirement was on medical ground.

Summary

Issues:
1. Rejection of application for compassionate appointment to son based on non-fulfillment of essential conditions.
2. Interpretation of retirement on medical grounds and entitlement to compassionate appointment.
3. Lack of reasoning in the rejection order and the need for a fresh consideration.

Analysis:
Issue 1: The petitioner's application for compassionate appointment to her son was rejected due to the non-fulfillment of essential conditions. The rejection was based on a non-speaking order, lacking detailed reasoning. The court noted that the authority did not provide justifiable reasons for the rejection, emphasizing the necessity for the department to specify the actual grounds for refusal. The lack of consideration for the husband's retirement on medical grounds, which was admitted by the first respondent, was a crucial oversight in the decision-making process.

Issue 2: The court delved into the interpretation of the husband's retirement on medical grounds and its implications on the petitioner's entitlement to compassionate appointment for her son. While the first respondent argued that the retirement was voluntary and, therefore, legal representatives were not eligible for compassionate appointment, the court disagreed. It highlighted the importance of considering the medical grounds for retirement in the context of compassionate appointments, indicating that such circumstances should be taken into account during decision-making.

Issue 3: The court concluded that the rejection order lacked substantive reasoning and failed to address the crucial aspect of the husband's retirement due to medical reasons. As a result, the court set aside the memorandum dated 18 October, 2011, directing the second respondent to reevaluate the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment to her son. The court emphasized the need for a fresh consideration of the case, taking into account the medical grounds for retirement and ensuring compliance with the relevant scheme. The second respondent was instructed to complete this review within eight weeks from the date of the court's order.

In summary, the judgment highlighted the importance of providing detailed reasoning in decision-making processes, especially in cases involving compassionate appointments. It underscored the significance of considering medical grounds for retirement and ensuring a fair and thorough evaluation of applications in accordance with the relevant scheme.