IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR.

O.A. No. ............................./2015

Kripal Singh s/o late Shri Battu Ram Meena

aged about 25 years r/o Village & Post
Bhawanpura Tehsil Rupbas via Bandh Baretha
Distict Bharatpur (Rajasthan)
……………………….Applicant
Vs.
1- Union of India through its Secretary,
Ministry of Defence, Government of India,
New Delhi.
2- Principal Controller of Defence Accounts,
411001 (Maharashtra)
……………………………Non-applicant.

APPLICATION U/S 19 OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE

TRIBUNALS ACT, 1985

MAY IT PLEASE THE HON’BLE TRIBUNAL,

Humble applicant respectfully begs to submit

the O.A. as under:

1- Particulars of the orders against which the

application is made
 2

1-
(a) Order No.:

(b) Dated: 20.9.1996

(c) Issued by: Principal Controller of
defence Accounts
(d) Subject in Appointment on compassionate
brief: Grounds.

2. Jurisdiction of the Tribunal:

The applicant declares that the subject matter of

this Application under which he wants redressal

is within the jurisdiction of this Hon’ble

Tribunal.

3. Limitation:

Applicant further declares that this Application

is within the limitation prescribed under section

21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985.

However, if the Hon’ble Tribunal thinks it is

delayed, an application for condonation of delay

alongwith affidavit is being filed.

4. Facts of the case:

1- That the father of the applicant was working as

Senior Auditor in the office of Principal

 3

Controller of Defence Accounts, Southern-

Western Command, Jaipur. He left for heavenly

abode on 21.11.2001.

2- That at the time of death of applicant’s father

applicant was minor thus his mother i.e. the

widow of Ex. Army Personnel No. 8313947 applied

for appointment on the post of Class IV which

was rejected vide order dated 24.7.2003 by the

Principal Controller of Defence Accounts, Puna.

A Photostat copy of order dated 24.7.2003 is

submitted herewith and marked as Annexure A/1.

3- That vide letter dated 28.7.2003, Speaking

Order No. AN/II/71127/GDN/Comp. appoint dated

24.7.2003 was enclosed. The case of

applicant's mother Smt. Girija Devi for

appointment on the post of Class IV was

rejected as per para No. 4 of the Speaking

Order dated 24.7.2003. Para No. 4 of the said

speaking order is reproduced below:

"THEREFORE, keeping in view the provisions contained in DOPT letters and

rulings in the Supreme Court Judgment cited above, your request for
compassionate appointment could not be acceded to on the grounds that the 5% of
Direct Recruitment quota earmarked for the appointment on compassionate ground
in Group 'C' and Group 'D' posts has already een filled up out of the vacancies
released by HQRS. office from time to time."
 4

Photostat copies order dated 28.7.2003 and

Speaking Order dated 24.7.2003 are submitted

herewith and marked as Annexure-2 colly.

4- That thereafter the mother of applicant again

requested on 15.11.2006 the Defence

authorities to give appointment on

compassionate grounds on the post of CLERK to

her son (Applicant) vide representation dated

29.5.2007 which was also turned down vide

letter dated 4.7.2007 by the office of Chief

Controller of Accounts, Puna. Photostat copy

of representation dated 15.11.2006 and refusal

letter dated 4.7.2007 are submitted herewith

and marked as Annexure A/3 and Annexure A/4

respectively.

5- That in the representation dated 15.11.2006 the

mother of Applicant (widow of Ex. Army

Personnel Battu Ram Meena) specifically

mentioned that her son Kripal Singh who has

attained the age of 18 years on 21.7.2006 be

given appointment on compassionate grounds.

6- That vide letter dated 19.7.2013 the office of

Principal Controller of Defence Accounts, Puna

 5

sent the proforma ‘A’ for filling up the

Applicant. It was further mentioned that the

educational qualifications acquired by the

applicant be also enclosed with the annexed

prforma. A Photostat copy of letter dated

19.7.2013 is submitted herewith and marked as

Annexure-A/5.

7- That humble applicant attained the age of 18

years on 21.7.2006. In pursuance of letter

dated 19.7.2013 he submitted the application

for appointment on compassionate grounds

alongwith the proforma and marksheet of B.A. to

the Principal Controller of Defence Accounts,

Puna. A Photostat copy of Application alongwith

its enclosures is submitted herewith and marked

as Annexure A/6 colly.

8- That as per the information received under the

RTI vide various letters it is clearly proved

that there were sufficient vacancies of CLERKs

under the respondents i.e. in the year 2006-08

(68 vacancies), during the year 2008-09 (51

vacancies), during the year 2009-10 (282

vacancies) and during the year 2011-11 (117

vacancies). For example letter dated 21.12.2012

 6

is enclosed herewith and marked as Annexure-A/7

and rest information received through RTI will

be kept ready at the time of hearing.

9- That vide letter No. AN/II/71127/Comp.Appt/GDM/

dated 20.9.2013 the office of Principal

Controller of Defence Accounts (Southern

Command), Puna informed the applicant that his

claim for appointment on the post of CLERK ( C

Group) has been rejected in the light of the

Speaking order dated 24.7.2003 (Annexure-2

colly). Photostat copy of letter dated

20.9.2013 is submitted herewith and marked as

Annexure-A/8.

10- That as per information received under RTI Act,

the respondents have themselves admitted that

there were vacancies of CLERKs (Group C) as

under:

Year No. of vacancies remained available

2006-08 68
2008-09 51
2009-10 282
2010-11 117

Thus in the light of Speaking Order dated

24.7.2003 (Annexure-2 colly) the vacancies for

being appointed on compassionate grounds under

 7

Group C were available from the year 2006 to

2011 and onwards but the respondents knowingly

did not consider the case of applicant for

appointment on the post of CLERK (Group C). In

other words the respondents are bent upon not

to appoint petitioner at any rate.

11- That discrimination on the part of the

respondents is clearly proved that if the

vacancy was not available in the year 2006 then

applicant ought to have been considered in the

year 2007 and consequently for next year's

vacancies. Applicant was in line from the date

he submitted his application for appointment.

It was for the respondents to appoint the

applicant from the date his turn comes.

12- That it is sorry state of affairs that all

representations submitted by the Applicant and

his mother were not considered in correct

perspective as stated above the applicant’s

case is prima-facie strong in his favour and

the action of the respondents is

discriminatory, arbitrary, capricious, against

the statutory rules and violative of the

principles of natural justice.

 8

13- That in public offices there is no provision to

fill up the vacancies on pick and choose basis.

By not appointing the applicant on the post of

Clerk it is clearly proved that respondents

have been violated the provisions of Article 14

& 16 of the Constitution of India.

14- That humble petitioner served notice for demand

of justice through his counsel on 26.9.2014

upon the respondents but the same has not been

considered and replied so far. Photostat copy

of notice for Demand of Justice dated 26.9.2014

is submitted herewith and marked as Annexure-

A/9.

15- That being aggrieved with the discriminatory,

arbitrary, capricious, illegal and arbitrary

action of the respondents, in rejecting the

candidature of humble applicant vide impugned

letter dated 20.9.2013 humble applicant submits

this O.A. on the following grounds.

5. Ground with legal provisions for relief:

 9

A- Because the action of the respondents is

discriminatory, arbitrary, capricious, against

the statutory rules and violative of the

principles of natural justice.

B- Because the orders/letters whereby petitioner's

case has been rejected for being appointed on

the post of CLERK are non-speaking orders. No

reason has been assigned that on what

grounds/rules/orders the request of humble

applicant and his mother have been turned down.

Non-speaking orders are non-est in eye of law

and can not be allowed to sustain.

C- Because as per Annexure-A/7 it is clearly

proved that there were sufficient vacancies of

Class C under the respondents thus there

remains no cogent and convincing reasons in not

appointing the applicant on the post of CLERK

under the respondents.

D- Because in the light of Speaking Order dated

24.7.2003 (Annexure-2 colly) the vacancies

reserved for candidates being appointed on

compassionate grounds under Group C were

available from the year 2006 to 2011 and

 10

onwards but the respondents knowingly did not

consider the case of applicant for appointment

on the post of CLERK (Group C). In other words

the respondents are bent upon not to appoint

petitioner at any rate.

E- Because discrimination on the part of the

respondents is clearly proved that if the

vacancy was not available in the year 2006 then

applicant ought to have been considered in the

year 2007 and consequently for next year's

vacancies. Applicant was in line from the date

he submitted his application for appointment.

It was for the respondents to appoint the

applicant from the date his turn comes.

F- Because number of the dependants of Ex. Army

personnel who died during service have been

given appointments on compassionate grounds but

in applicant’s case he has denied without

assigning any reason. Such action of the

respondents is discriminatory and in public

offices the discriminatory action can not be

allowed to sustain for a moment.

 11

H- Because being aggrieved with the

discriminatory, capricious, illegal and

arbitrary action of the respondents, humble

applicant submitted various representations but

all in vein as the respondents are pre-

determined to not to give appointment on

compensation grounds either to applicant or his

mother.

I- Because applicant's cogent and convincing

notice for demand of justice dated 26.9.2014

has not been considered.

J- Because humble applicant is entitled to be

appointed as CLERK under the respondents w.e.f.

the date he submitted his application with all

consequential benefits.

K- That other grounds will be urged at the time

of hearing.

6. Details of the remedies exhausted:

That no alternative remedy is available under

the service rules to the applicant except to knock

the door of the jurisdiction of the legal forum.

 12

All the representations have not been replied.

Recently Applicant submitted representation dated

7. Matter not pending with any other court etc:

The applicant further declares that the matter

regarding which this application has been made,

is not pending before any Court of law or any

other authority or any other Bench of the

Tribunal.

8. Relief sought:

In view of the facts mentioned in the preceding

paras above, humble applicant prays for the

following relief:

(a) That by appropriate order, direction, mandate

it be declared that the denial of appointment

to the applicant on the post of Clerk is

arbitrary, illegal, capricious, non-speaking

orders against the material on record and be

quashed and set aside.

(b) That it be declared that humble applicant is

legally entitled to be appointed on the post of

CLERK w.e.f. the date he submitted his

application with all consequential benefits.

 13

(c) Any other relief which the Hon’ble Tribunal

thinks just and proper in the circumstances of

the case in favour of the humble applicant may

also be allowed.

(d) Cost of the O.A. be awarded to humble

applicant.

9. Interim order, if prayed for:

Nil

10. Not applicable in the present case.

11. Particulars of the postal order in respect of

the Application fee:

(a) Postal order No.

(b) Name of the Post Post Office,
office who issued
(c) Dated:

12. List of Enclosures:

1- Letter dated 24.7.2003

2- Letter dated 28.7.2003 alongwith letter dated
24.7.2003
3- Representation dated 15.11.2006
4- Letter dated 4.7.2007
5- Letter dated 19.7.2013
6- Application for appointment on the post of LDC
alongwith its enclosures
 14

7- Letter dated 21.12.2012

8- Impugned letter dated 20.9.2013
9- Notice for demand of justice dated 26.9.2014.

Other Enclosures:
Postal order worth Rs. 50.00
Envelopes-2.
(Kripal Singh)
Humble applicant.
Jaipur,
Dated the November, 2015

Through Counsel:

Praveen Sharma
Advocate:

VERIFICATION

I, Kripal Singh s/o late Shri Battu Ram Meena

aged about 25 years r/o Village & Post Bhawanpura
Tehsil Rupbas via Bandh Baretha Distict Bharatpur
(Rajasthan) do hereby verify that the contents of
paras No. 1 to 12 of the Application are true to my
personal knowledge and belief and that I have not
suppressed any material fact.
DEPONENT
Jaipur,
Dated the November, 2015
 15

IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR.

Misc. Application for Condonation of Delay No. ----------/2015

in
O.A. No._______/2015

Kripal Singh s/o late Shri Battu Ram Meena

aged about 25 years r/o Village & Post
Bhawanpura Tehsil Rupbas via Bandh Baretha
Distict Bharatpur (Rajasthan)
……………………….Applicant
Vs.
1- Union of India through its Secretary,
Ministry of Defence, Government of India,
New Delhi.
3- Principal Controller of Defence Accounts,
411001 (Maharashtra)

Application for Condonation of Delay u/s 5 of the Limitation Act

MAY IT PLEASE THE HON’BLE TRIBUNAL,

Humble applicant most respectfully begs to

submit the Application for condonation of delay as

under:

1- That humble applicant this day has filled an

O.A. for the non-consideration and non-

promoting him to the post of Gr.IV under the

 16

respondents. The O.A. is on prima-facie strong

grounds and has all hopes of being accepted it.

2- That the O.A. was to be filed within in time

but in this O.A. period of limitation has been

expired.

3- That as the matter was pending with the

respondents and finally vide letter dated

20.9.2013 the respondents have denied to

appoint the applicant on the post of Clerk.

Applicant was in the impression that justice

will be done by the respondents and he will be

appointed as Clerk very soon by the

respondents.

4- That the applicant will suffer irreparable loss

if the delay of is not condoned.

PRAYER

Hence this application for condonation of

delay is submitted and it is humbly prayed that in

the interest of justice the delay in filing the

O.A. for .... days be condoned and the O.A. be

decided on merits.

humble applicant,

(Kripal Singh)

Through Counsel:
 17

(Praveen Sharma)
Advocate.

Notes:

1- That no such Application for Condonation of Delay has previously

been filed in this Hon’ble Tribunal.
2- That extra copies of the Application for Condonation of Delay and
other documents will be filed after admission of the Application for
Condonation of Delay in time.
3- That this Application for Condonation of Delay has not been typed by
my private steno. As the pie papers were not readily available hence
this Stay Application has been typed on stout papers.

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT.

 18

IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR.

Misc. Application for Condonation of Delay No. ............./2015

in
O.A. No._______/2014

Kripal Singh Vs. U.O.I. & Anr.

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF APPLICATION FOR

CONDONATION OF DELAY

I, Kripal Singh s/o late Shri Battu Ram Meena aged about 25 years
r/o Village & Post Bhawanpura Tehsil Rupbas via Bandh Baretha Distict
Bharatpur (Rajasthan) do, hereby take oath and state as under:

1- That I am applicant in the above noted case and am fully

conversant with the facts and circumstances of the case.
2- That the Application for Condonation of Delay which I am filing
herewith has been prepared under my instructions by appellant’s
Advocate. I have read over it and have understood its contents
fully.
3- That the contents of para No. 1 to 3 of the Application for
Condonation of Delay are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge.
Jaipur,
Dated the November, 2015

DEPONENT.
VERIFICATION

I, Kripal Singh, the above noted deponent do hereby verify on oath

that the contents of my above noted affidavit from paras 1 to 3 are true to my
personal knowledge. Nothing material has been concealed and no part of it
is false. So help me God.
 19

Identified by me:
DEPONENT.