Pushpak Mukherjee V. Union Of India And 2 Others

WRIA/4582/2023

AI Insights

The case involves Pushpak Mukherjee, the son of a deceased income tax inspector, who sought a compassionate appointment following his father's death while in service. The petitioner's father passed away on September 3, 2020, leaving behind a widow and two sons. The widow submitted a representation for a compassionate appointment to the respondent No.3, which led to a series of communications and requests for application forms. Despite fulfilling all formalities, the petitioner alleged that no decision was made by the respondents regarding the compassionate appointment. The court, noting the absence of the respondents' counsel, decided to dispose of the petition by allowing the petitioner to submit a fresh representation, which the respondents were directed to consider within a specified timeframe.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 693349 (HC-ALLAHABAD)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 04-04-2023
• Assessment Year: misc
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: A S G I; DILEEP PANDEY
• Assessee Lawyers: PANKAJ GUPTA; PRASHANT
• Keywords: Compassionate appointment; Income Tax Inspector; Representation; Permanent employee; Died in harness; Application form

Judgement Text

"Court No. - 39 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4582 of 2023 Petitioner :- Pushpak Mukherjee Respondent :- Union Of India And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Pankaj Kumar Gupta,Prashant Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Dileep Kumar Pandey Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. List on fresh cases has been revised. Sri Pankaj Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner is present, however, despite the fact that the notices have been received by Sri. Dileep Kumar Pandey on behalf of the respondent, he is not present. The case of the writ petitioner is that his father was a permanent employee working on the post of income tax inspector in the office of Income Tax Department, Allahabad. However, he died in harness on 03.09.2020 leaving behind a widow and two sons including the petitioner. As per the paragraph 8 of the writ petition, the widow of the deceased preferred a representation on 31.12.2020 before the respondent No.3 for granting compassionate appointment to his son being the petitioner. In para 9 of the writ petition it has been further averred that the respondent No. 3 thereafter wrote a letter to the writ petitioner on 30.03.2021 requiring him to fill up the form in prescribed performa so as to enable the department to proceed for consideration of the claim of the writ petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment. The Writ petitioner as per the para 10 of the writ petition (Annexure- 4), submits, that he has filed the required documents in performa being in two parts, part-A and part-B on 05.04.2021. It is the further case of the writ petitioner that on 06.08.21 a communication has been issued whereby it has been provided that post amendment in the rules, the writ petitioner will be required to submit an application seeking appointment in the prescribed proforma. In para 13 of the writ petition it is further averred that the petitioner has again submitted the application form on 13.08.2021 in prescribed proforma. Pleading further reveal that on 24.11.22 the respondent no.3 issued a communication to the writ petitioner to submit a fresh application form for seeking compassionate appointment to which the writ petitioner claims to have responded on 05.04.2021. As per the para 14 and 15 of the writ petition, it is further the case of the writ petitioner, despite the fact that all the formalities had been completed at the end of the petitioner but no conscious decision whatsoever has been taken by the respondents. Since as already observed that in revised call the counsel for the respondent is not present, thus this Court has no option but to proceed with the matter. Considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the pleadings set forth by the counsel for the writ petitioner, the writ petition is being disposed of with granting liberty to the writ petitioner to prefer a comprehensive representation before the respondent No.3, (Compassionate appointment committee through its President/Secretary, Office- Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Uttar Pradesh (East), Lucknow) along with the self attested copies of the writ petition within a period of three weeks from today and on the receipt of the same the third respondent shall accord consideration to the claim of the writ petitioner within a period of 3 months from the production of the certified copy of the order. Needless to point out that the passing of the order may not be construed to be an expression that this Court has adjudicated on the merits of the matter as the writ petition has been decided on the basis of the pleadings set forth and in absence of counsel for the respondents. Thus any observations made herein shall not influence the third respondent while proceeding with the matter. With the said the writ petition is disposed of. Order Date :- 4.4.2023 Vipul Digitally signed by :- VIPUL PRATAP GOGAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad "