Income Tax Case

’THE HONBLE HIGH COURT [ CHHATTISG]BILASPURW. P. (S) No.I[«V]/[20][ 12]‘ ARH AT Ku. Shikha Shriwas, PETITIONERM D/o.LateShriDevPrasadShriwas,Agedabout32years,R/o.BhartiyaNagar,nearIncome Tax Office,[Bilaspur][ Distt.]Bilaspur (C.G.) \%%\./Va&&‘¢§$\§\g’x§w$, ..“kRESPONDENTS VERSUS Union of India l. Through:SecretarytotheGovernment of India,Ministry ofCoal, Shastri Bhawan, New[ Delhi,](India)[110][ 001] Chairman—Cum‘Managing 2. Director South EasternCoalfieldLimited,P.O.BoxNo.16,SipatRoad, Bilaspur (C.G.)GeneralManager(Mines),PaliBirsinghpur,SubArea,Post-BirsingpurPalit Distt.Umariya(M.P.) 3. ‘ Personnel Manager, 4. South Eastern Coalfields[Limited,]PaliGroup,OfficeofGeneral'(Mines),ManagerSub-AreaPali,Birsinghpur,Pali,Distt. Umariya(M.P.), Director (Personnel) 5. South Eastern Coalfields Limited,Sipat Road, Bilaspur (C.G.) ¥ w WRIT [ UNDER][ ARTICLE][ 226][ OF][ THE]TIOII [ INDIA]CONSTITU HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(S) No. 188 of2012 PETITIONER :Ku. Shikha Shriwas VERSUS RESPONDENTSUnion of India and others (WR!T [ UNDER][ ARTICLE][ 226][ OF THE] CONSTITUTION OF INDIA) (SB:Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Agarwal. J.) Present:Ms. Naushina Afrin Ali, Counsel for the petitioner.Shri Abhisek Sinha with Shri Ghanshyam Patel,Advocate for the respondents.Shri Abhisek Sinha with Shri Ghanshyam Patel,Advocate for the respondents. ORAL ORDER(Passed[on][ 03.04.2014)] 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner wants to impugn andchallengetheorderdated10.12.2011(AnnexureP/1),passedbytherespondentsrejectingpetitioner'sapplicationforgrantofappointmentoncompassionateground. 2.The brief facts, necessary for disposal of this petition areas under:— The petitioner's father was working as Guardwithrespondent S.E.C.L.. While duty on15.03.2000,hedied. The petitioner being daughter of the deceased hasappliedforgrantofappointmentoncompassionateground.[Vide][ order][ impugned,][ the][ respondents][ declined][ to]grantappointmentonthegroundstatedinthe order/communication impugned dated 10.12.2011. Hencethis petition. Themaingrievanceofthepetitioneristhattherespondentshavenotpassedtheorderinaccordancewith the ruies/reguiations/policies/agreement prevailingintherespondent'sdepartmentatthattimeforgrantofcompassionate appointment and on the contrary the orderhas been passed even without assigning any reason. KOntheotherhand,ShriGhanshyamPatellearnedCounselappearingfortherespondentssuppottedtheorder impugned. l have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perusedthe paper book. The operativepart[of][ the][ order/communication]reads as under :- ”WWWWWW woéammaoq‘og‘tmwmM$wwmm$mWWW~WWWQJIH§mWgmmWilma WWWWImwwuéwaowoWm$wmsssmm11.2011QH'atlsatea$rm WW/ato/Wo/m/u/ww W26.11.2011 $ ass was W w s1%; mWWW#%W§WWWwé W WWWattiErtrW$mmwmwwn€f§|u 7.Without entering into the merits of the matter, sufficeit tosaytheorder/communicationimpugnedisneitherspeaking order nor has been passed considering the factsof the case in the light of policy/rules/agreement prevailingat therelevant timefor appointment oncompassionateground[and][ as][ such][ is][ not][ sustainable][ in][ law,] 8. For the reasons mentioned above, the petitionis allowed,the order impugned dated10.12.2011(AnnexureP/1)isq“tlashedi[The][ matter]isremitted back to the respondentNo.5 to pass reasoned order afresh after considering thepetitioner's[application][ in][ accordance][ with][ law][ as][ early][ as]possible preferably[within][ a]period[of][ four][ months][ from][ the]date of receipt of copy of this order. 9. No order as to costs. Sd/-N. K. AgarwalJudge