Skip to content


Urmila Devi and Another Vs. the Union of India (Through Secretary), New Delhi and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Court

Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

Decided On

Case Number

OA No. 476 of 2011

Judge

Appellant

Urmila Devi and Another

Respondent

The Union of India (Through Secretary), New Delhi and Others

Advocates:

For the Applicants: V.P.S. Tyagi, Advocate. For the Respondents: R.N. Singh, Advocate.

Excerpt:


.....to availability of vacancies for the purpose of compassionate appointment. 2. since the applicant’s case is being considered by the respondents, there is no lis between the parties which survives for consideration in the present application, the applicant’s counsel states that the applicant would be satisfied if the respondents inform him of the result of the consideration of his case by the subsequent meeting of the screening committee, to which respondents’ counsel does not have any objection. as a matter of fact, as and when such meetings are held, the results thereof would be informed to the concerned in due course. the applicant will, however, have liberty to seek redressal for any further grievance remains. 3. the original application is disposed of in the above terms.

Judgment:


(ORAL)

1. The claim of the applicant in this Application is for compassionate appointment. Subsequent to filing of this Application, the applicant was in receipt of respondents’ communication dated 17.1.2011, whereby the applicant was informed of the result of consideration of his case by the Screening Committee, whereby his claim did not find any merit due to other cases being more deserving. The applicant, however, was also informed that his case would further be considered in the next Screening Committee subject to availability of vacancies for the purpose of compassionate appointment.

2. Since the applicant’s case is being considered by the respondents, there is no lis between the parties which survives for consideration in the present Application, the applicant’s counsel states that the applicant would be satisfied if the respondents inform him of the result of the consideration of his case by the subsequent meeting of the Screening Committee, to which respondents’ counsel does not have any objection. As a matter of fact, as and when such meetings are held, the results thereof would be informed to the concerned in due course. The applicant will, however, have liberty to seek redressal for any further grievance remains.

3. The Original Application is disposed of in the above terms.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //