RAJKUMAR S/O LATE SHRI MOOLCHAND VERMA v. UNION OF INDIA
WRW/177/2024 · 2025-04-22
Avneesh Jhingan, Shubha Mehta
Review Petitionbody2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 33149 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 33149 (RAJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
[2025:RJ-JP:16848-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Review Petition (Writ) No. 177/2024 Rajkumar S/o Late Shri Moolchand Verma, Aged About 35 Years, (Ex-Bpm Post Office Sodawas Tehsil Mundawar) R/o Village Sodawas,tehsil Mundawar, District Alwar Group-D ----Petitioner Versus
1. Union Of India, Through Secretary, Ministry Of Communicaton, Department Of Post, Dak Tar Bhawan, New Delhi- 110001
2. The Chief Postmaster General, Rajasthan Circle, Jaipur- 302007
3. Senior Superintendent Of Post Office, Alwar-301001 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Sharma with Ms. Sanju Saini HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SHUBHA MEHTA Order 22/04/2025
1. This review petition has been filed pleading that it has wrongly been recorded in the order dated 09.04.2024 that the application filed by the brother of the petitioner was rejected in the year 2006.
2. The contention is that the respondent be directed to place on record the document rejecting the application of his brother in the year 2006.
3. The father of the petitioner expired on 21.12.2005 and thereafter, the elder brother of the petitioner applied for
[2025:RJ-JP:16848-DB] (2 of 2) [WRW-177/2024] compassionate appointment and the request was finally rejected in the year 2020. The application dated 01.02.2021 filed by petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected on
17.11.2021. Relying upon the decision of the Apex Court the rejection was upheld by the Central Administrative Tribunal for having been filed beyond reasonable period. This Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal that the claim for compassionate appointment cannot be made after lapse of reasonable period and when the crisis is over.
3. There is no case made out for review, the review petition is dismissed.
4. Since the review petition has been decided on merits, the application for condonation of delay is accordingly disposed of.
(SHUBHA MEHTA),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J LAKSHYA/CHANDAN/5