RAVI KUMAR vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND OTHERS
What did the High Court hold?
The Court noted that the sole reason for denying compassionate appointment was the petitioner's alleged non-appearance for the interview. The petitioner's claim was that the interview letter was received late, or not at all, preventing his attendance. The Court found that the eligibility of the petitioner for compassionate appointment had not been formally rejected by the respondents. Therefore, to resolve the dispute, the Court fixed a new date for the petitioner's interview as February 5, 2024, at 11 a.m. at the office of respondent No. 3. Within two months thereafter, the concerned authority was directed to pass an appropriate order regarding the petitioner's entitlement to compassionate appointment and to communicate the decision. If found entitled, the benefit was to be extended without delay. The petitioner's counsel submitted that with this order, no further grievance remained, and the petition could be disposed of as not pressed.
What were the facts?
The petitioner, Ravi Kumar, sought compassionate appointment. The respondents denied this benefit, citing the petitioner's failure to appear for an interview scheduled for January 20, 2017. The petitioner contended that the interview letter was received on January 25, 2017, after the scheduled date, and he subsequently received no further communication despite expressing readiness for an interview. The respondents countered that there was no record of the letter being received late and that a subsequent interview letter sent in 2019 was returned undelivered. Respondents No. 4 and 5 indicated willingness to comply with any court-directed interview date.
What were the issues?
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to compassionate appointment, considering the dispute over the receipt of the interview letter dated 20.01.2017 and his subsequent non-appearance for the interview (mixed question of law and fact). Assessee's Contention: The petitioner argued that he could not appear for the interview on January 20, 2017, as the letter was received on January 25, 2017, after the scheduled date. He further claimed that no subsequent communication was received, and he repeatedly expressed his willingness to attend an interview. Revenue's Contention: The respondents stated that there was no record to support the petitioner's claim of receiving the interview letter after the scheduled date. They also pointed out that a later interview letter sent in 2019 was returned undelivered, implying no fault on their part.
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
CWP-13855-2020 -1- 2024:PHHC:002942 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 238 CWP-13855-2020 Date of Decision :10.01.2024 Ravi Kumar
...Petitioner
Versus Commissioner of Income Tax (Audit) and others ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI Present: Mr. Munish Kamboj, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Pankaj Middha, Addl. AG, Haryana. Mr. Parveen Chander Goyal, Advocate for respondents No. 1, 4 and 6. Ms. Gauri Neo Rampal, Advocate for respondents No.5. * * * Harsimran Singh Sethi, J. (Oral) 1. In the present petition, the claim of the petitioner is for the grant of compassionate appointment to him. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner fulfills all the terms and conditions required to be given the benefit of compassionate appointment but the said benefit has not been extended to him by the respondents on the ground that a letter was sent to the petitioner to appear on 20.1.2017 (annexed as Annexure P/1) for interview but he did not appear for the same whereas, the said letter was received by the petitioner on 25.01.2017 i.e. after the date of interview hence, the petitioner could not appear and thereafter, petitioner never received any communication from the respondents and rather the petitioner kept on AARTI SHARMA 2024.01.15 11:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
CWP-13855-2020 -2- 2024:PHHC:002942 approaching the respondents that he is ready to appear for interview but same was not taken so as to deny the benefit of compassionate appointment to the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that nothing has come on record that the letter calling the petitioner for interview on 20.01.2017 was received by him after the said date. Learned counsel for respondents further submits that in the year 2019, a letter was also sent to the petitioner for interview but the said letter was received back undelivered hence, no fault can be attributed to the respondents. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.4 and 5 submits that in case any date is fixed by this Court for interviewing the petitioner for the grant of benefit of compassionate appointment, the said direction will be complied with. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record with their able assistance. 6. The only reason for not granting the benefit of compassionate appointment to the petitioner is that the petitioner never appeared for interview on the date fixed for the said purpose whereas, the stand of the petitioner is that he never received any letter so as to appear for the interview or the letter was received by him after the date fixed for the interview. 7. Nothing has come on record that the eligibility of the petitioner to get the benefit of compassionate appointment has been rejected and decided by the respondents hence, this Court fix the date of interview as 05.02.2024 at 11 a.m. on which date, the petitioner will appear in the office of respondent No.3 so that he will be interviewed by the authority AARTI SHARMA 2024.01.15 11:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
CWP-13855-2020 -3- 2024:PHHC:002942 concerned and within a period of next two months, the concerned authority will pass an appropriate order with regard to the claim of the petitioner whether he is entitled for the grant of benefit of compassionate appointment and the said order will be conveyed to the petitioner for his information and necessary action and in case after the decision, the petitioner is found entitled for the benefit in question, the same will be extended to him without any further delay. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that keeping in view the present order, no further grievance of the petitioner survives and the present petition may kindly be disposed of having been not pressed any further. 9. Ordered accordingly. January 10, 2024 (HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) aarti JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No AARTI SHARMA 2024.01.15 11:31 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Aashutosh vs. The State Of Madhy PradeshMadhya Pradesh · 23 Oct 2026
- M/S Barnala Steel Industries Private Limited vs. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 2 OthersAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- Skd Suppliers Private Limited vs. The Superintendent, Central CGST, Rishra Division, Range-Ii, And AnrCalcutta · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Aasha Industries vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
- M/S Bharat Iron Scrap vs. State Of U.P. And AnotherAllahabad · 22 Oct 2026
