TARA SINGH AND ANR. vs UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

$~72 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 11074/2019 & CM APPL. 31950/2020 TARA SINGH AND ANR. .....Petitioners Through: Mr. U. Srivastava with Mr. Anoop Kumar and Mr. M.K. Gaur, Advs. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ...Respondents Through: Ms. Monika Arora, CGSC with Mr. Subhrodeep Saha and Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY DIGPAUL JUDGMENT (ORAL) % 03.02.2025 C. HARI SHANKAR, J. 1. This writ petition challenges order dated 14 August 2019 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal1 in OA 2740/2016. 2. The petitioners are father and son, with Petitioner 2 being the son of Petitioner 1. 3. Petitioner 1 was compulsorily retired from service on the ground of vision malingering. As a result, Petitioner 2, his son, was denied compassionate appointment on the ground that the applicable policy did not permit compassionate appointment of dependence of persons who were guilty of vision malingering. Signature Not Verified Signed By:MEENU W.P.(C) 11074/2019 Page 1 of 3 KALRA Signing Date:07.02.2025 17:33:56 4. The petitioners in their OA, challenge the decision to compulsorily retired Petitioner 1 as well as deny compassionate appointment to Petitioner 2. 5. The Tribunal has, unfortunately, only addressed the second aspect of the matter and has not addressed the legal sustainability of the decision to compulsorily retire Petitioner 1. This position has been noticed by this Court in the very first order passed in the present case on 13 November 2019 while issuing notice in the writ petition. 6. We have heard learned counsel for both sides. 7. Mr. Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioners, is agreeable to disposal of this writ petition without interfering with the decision of the Tribunal qua the aspect of