IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JAMMU,

BENCH AT JAMMU

RAMESH KUMAR PANDITA, AGE 70 YEARS

S/O , J

R/0, Laxmipuram Chinore Bantalab District Jammu

.......APPLICANT/ PETITIONER

VERSUS

1. SATATE OF ---UT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR

THROUGH ITS PRINCIPLE SECRETARY

SCHOOL EDUCATION DEPARTMENT,

JAMMU.

…….. RESPONDENTS

1. DETAILS OF APPLICATION.:-

PARTICULARS OF THE ORDER AGAINST WHICH THE APPLICATION IS

MADE:-

That through the medium of this present application, the applicant

herein is seeking a direction much less writ of certiorari seeking
quashment of the order no. DSEJ/Legal/30642-45, dated 13-01-1990,
issued by the office of respondent no. whereby the case of the
applicant for appointment for compassionate ground under
compassionate rule 1994, (herein after referred to as the rules of
1994 ) has been rejected by a non-speaking and an arbitrary order ,
thereby depriving the applicant of his fundamental right guaranteed
to him under article 14 and 16 of the constitution of India. The copy
of the order no. DSEJ/Legal/30642-45 dated 25-10-2023,(herein after
refer to as order impugned) is annexed with this application and
marked as Annexure A1.
2. LIMITATION:-

That the applicant further declares that the application is within the
limitation period prescribed in Section 21 of the Administrative
Tribunal Act, 1985, It is equally important to mention here that
Hon’ble Tribunal has assumed its jurisdiction in the Union Territory
of Jammu And Kashmir on 28th April 2020 itself and as per the
mandate of Section 21 sub section (2) clause (a), the applicant is
approaching the Hon’ble Tribunal well in time.

3. FACTS OF THE CASE:-

a. That the petitioner was appointed as orderly on ad-hoc basis in

the grade of Rs 630-940 plus usual allowances for a period of

three months vide order no SEL/Estt/106/109 dated 3-4-1989 in

Igo Phey division of Leh against the available post of orderly. On

26-5-1989 he was allowed to continue on ad hoc basis till

clearance by D.P.C vide order no.SEL/ESTT/CAMP-SGR/161-63.

Copy of the appointment order and continuation of work order is

appended herewith as Annexure I.

b. That the salary of the petitioner is still pending w.e.f September

1989 to February 1990. Till today I have not received the

payment after a gap of 8 klong years.

c. That one junior most adhoc appointee namely Balwant Raj has

been allowed to continue in the same order while my service has

been terminated.

d. That the Petitioner Continued to work to the satisfaction of his

superiors. But the selection Committee vide order no. PW-189 of

 1989 dated 13-1-1990 terminated the service of the petitioner

with effect from ending December,1989 i.e 31-12-1989. In the

said order seven other persons were also terminated, the name

of the petitioner figures at serial no. 5 in the said order. Copy of

the said order is annexed herewith as Annexure-II

e. That one Balwant Raj was also appointed as chowkidar in

Mechanical Division Leh vide order no. PW-63 of 1989 dated 10-

6-1990 on ad-hoc basis and was allowed to continue his service.

He was appointed after the petitioner, as such the petitioner was

senior to the said Balwant Raj. As per D.P.C conducted by the

respondents the petitioner was terminated through being senior

to Balwant Raj. Later on the service of Balwant Raj was

regularized by the respondents despite of knowing the fact that

petitioner is senior to him.

f. That after the termination order passed by the respondents the

petitioner filed the writ petition Swp no.803/1996 in the Hon’ble

High Court of J&K, and The Hon’ble Court was pleased to pass

and interim order dated 29-6-1996, directing the respondents to

consider the case of petitioner against the available vacancy. On

the directions of Hon’ble court. the petitioner was appointed

vide order no. SEL/const/4540-44 dated 31-7 -

1997 as Helper in the payment scale of Rs 750-950 plus usual

allowances as admissible under rules on work charge

establishment in Igo Phey Division Leh. Copy of the court order

 dated 29-6-1996 and appointment order is annexed herewith as

Annexure-III

g. That after the issuance appointment order in favour of the

petitioner by the respondents. Petitioner has represented

number of the representation to the respondents for

regularisation of the service on the basis of that he was

appointment on available vacancy in 1989, and also his junior

Balwant Raj was regularised by the respondents. Petitioner was

overlooked and be deemed to be in service from the day he was

appointed and is entitled to all the pay and all other

consequential benefits from the date of the termination of his

service with pursuance of the Hon’ble code directions.

h. That the petitioner repeated request through the various

presentation but the respondents have not decided the

representations, submitted by the petitioner,

hence the Petitioner filled another writ petition Swp no.

740/2007 seeking writ of mandamus for treating the petitioner

in service from 30-04-1989 on regular basis and also release the

benefits as regards arrears of salary etc from September 1989

to August 1997. This petition along with connected CMA is

disposed of with a direction to the official respondents to take

final decision on merits with regards to take a claim made by the

petitioner in his representation. Copy of the court judgement

dated 08-10-2013 is appended herewith as Annexure-IV

 i. That after serving copy of the judgment dated 08-10-2013 to the

respondents for the compliance of the judgment which they

were supposed to take a final decision within a six weeks. That

the petitioner hope that his grievances will be redressed in

compliance to the served judgment and in consideration of the

present writ petition but there was no response from the

respondents in favour of the petitioner. Petitioner server the

reminders but nothing is done.

j. That the petitioner filed the contempt petition against the

respondents who have not complied with the served judgement

of dated 8-10-2013 passed in swp no. 740 / 2007.

4. GROUNDS OF RELIEF:-

a) That the order impugned is a true example of an order passed

without proper application of mind and has been passed slip

shod manner just to deprive the applicant of his rightful due

which he is entitled to as per rules of 1994.

b) That as opined by the Apex Court of the Country in a catena of

judgments it, ha,s been held in unequivocal terms that the

denial of an appointment on the ground of a pending criminal

case is not justifiable at all. In state of Gujarat &Anr Versus

SuryakantChuniLal Shah reported in 1999 (1)SCC 529, it has

been held that the mere involvement of any person in any

criminal case does not mean he is guilty. He still has to be tried

in the Court of law and the truth has to be found out ultimately

by the court where the prosecution is ultimately conducted. It,

 was, further observed that unless a person is held guilty by

conviction in a trial held by the court the presumption of his

innocence has to be construed.

c) That such a pendency of a case could also result in the acquittal

of the accused, could not constitute a factor for depriving a

selected candidate from employment unless he was convicted

and sentenced which would earn him a disqualification for

holding the post.

d) Needless to mention here that the petitioner had approached

the respondents a number of times but nothing was done in

favour of the petitioner and no steps were taken by the

respondents to redress the grievance of the petitioner leaving

him high and dry. Thus, the petitioner is left no option except to

approach the Hon’bleTribunal by presenting this petition for its

adjudication.

Any other points of legal importance shall be raised at the

time of the arguments of the case with the kind permission of
the Hon’ble Tribunal.

5. DETAILS OF THE REMEDY EXHAUSTED:-

The applicant declares that he has availed of all the remedies

available to him before filing the instant application, as the
applicant has approached respondents and made numerous
representation there by requesting them to consider him for
 appointment on compassionate grounds under the compassionate
Appointment Rules, 1994 in place of his mother who died in harness
but, however, nothing has been done so far by the respondents to
redress the grievances of the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner is left
with no option except to approach this Hon’ble Tribunal through the
medium of instant application.

6. Matter not previously filed or pending with any other

tribunal.

The applicant further declares that he has not previously filed any
application, writ petition or suit regarding the matter in respect of
which this application has been made, before any Tribunal or any
other authority or any other bench of the Tribunal nor such
application, writ petition or suit is pending before any of them.

7. RELIEF SOUGHT:-

In view of the facts mentioned in Para no.4, the applicant prays for
the following relief in the nature of writ of

a) Certiorari seeking quashment of order DSEJ/Legal/30642-45

dated 25-10-2023, whereby the case of the applicant has been
rejected by the respondents .
b) Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the applicant

for appointment to any class IV post under the Compassionate

Appointment Rules, 1994 in place of his deceased mother who

died in harness while in active service on 29-4-2021.

c) Mandamus directing the respondents to take an immediate call

on the numerous representations pending with the respondents

and there after take a decision as to the appointment of the

 applicant on compassionate grounds in place of his mother who

was serving as a master in the respondent department.

d) Any other order which the Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and

proper may also be passed in favor of the applicant and against

the respondents.

8. INTERIM RELIEF IF ANY:-

Pending final decision on the application, the applicant seeks the
following interim relief:-

a) Certiorari seeking quashment of order DSEJ/Legal/30642-45

dated 25-10-2023, whereby the case of the applicant has been
rejected by the respondents.
b) Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the applicant

for appointment to any class IV post under the Compassionate

Appointment Rules, 1994 in place of his deceased mother who

died in harness while in active service on 29-4-2021.

c) Mandamus directing the respondents to take an immediate call

on the numerous representations pending with the respondents

and there after take a decision as to the appointment of the

applicant on compassionate grounds in place of his mother who

was serving as a master in the respondent department.

d) Any other order which the Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and

proper may also be passed in favor of the applicant and against

the respondents.

9. IN THE EVENT OF APPLICATION BEING SENT BY REGISTERED

POST:-

Not applicable.
 10. PARTICULARS OF BANK DRAFT/POSTAL ORDER FILED IN
RESPECT OF THE APPLICATION FEE:

IPO NO.______________ DATED ____________ for Rs.50/- payable at

Jammu.

11. LIST OF THE ENCLOSURE:-

a. ANNEXURE-A
(Copy of the service book)

b. ANNEXURE-B
(Copy of the order date 5-1-2018)
c. ANNEXURE- C
(Copy of the departmental communications)
d. ANNEXURE- D
(Copy of copy of the LPC)

SIGNATURE OF THE APPLICANT

THROUGH COUNSEL

SHIVANI JALALI PANDITA

(ADVOCATE)

Place:- Jammu
Dated :-
Mob. No.- +919797550366
E-Mail Id. shivanijalalipandita@gmail.com,

VERIFICATION:-

I, Ramesh kuma Pandita AGE 70 YEARS, S/O Janki Nath

Pandita , R/O Laxmipuram Chinore Bantalab, District Jammu do
hereby verify that the contents of para no. to are true to my personal
knowledge and the para no. to are believed to be true on the legal advice
and that I have not suppressed any material facts.

SIGNATURE OF THE APPLICANT