Surendrakumar Chandrashekhar Yele vs Union of India through Senior Division Personnel officer on 30 October 2026

ORAL ORDER

Per: Justice M.G. Sewlikar, Member (J)

We have heard learned counsel for the applicant.

2. He states that applicant had made representation on 27th May, 2022. According to him, the representation dated 27th May, 2022 is yet not decided. The impugned order shows that the Rashmi

representation was made on 07th June, 2022. Learned counsel for the applicant states that the applicant did not make any such representation on 07th June, 2022. He further states that the Order dated 14th July, 2022 is not an order but it is a mere communication. A communication cannot be challenged. Only final order can be challenged. He, therefore, states that applicant has filed this application only for direction to the respondents to decide his representation dated 27th May, 2022.

3. On perusal of the OA, what we have noticed is that the application of the applicant was rejected on 14th July, 2022 mentioning therein that applicant was not found eligible for appointment on compassionate ground. Learned counsel for the applicant calls this as a communication. Even if it is a communication, he has been informed that he had not been found eligible for the appointment on compassionate ground. Therefore, in our considered opinion, it is an order. Even the Bombay High Court at Nagpur Bench in Writ Petition No. 2634 of 2026 also observed in para 3 and 4 thus:- “3. The perusal of the petition reveals that on 14/07/2022 the respondent No.2 has communicated the rejection of such application made by the petitioner for grant of Rashmi

compassionate appointment. The aforesaid communication dated 14/07/2022 is at record page 15 (Annexure-P-8).

4. In view of such rejection, the learned counsel for the petitioner, upon instructions, seeks permission to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to challenge the aforesaid communication dated 14/07/2022 before the appropriate forum by initiating appropriate proceeding in accordance with law.”

4. This clearly shows that the High Court is also treating this communication as a rejection of the application of the applicant for appointment on compassionate ground.

5. We made a query to the learned counsel for the applicant as to whether the applicant is ready to file application for condonation of the delay. Learned counsel submits that there is no delay and he will not file application for condonation of the delay.

6. So far as direction to decide representation is concerned, we asked learned counsel for the applicant as to whether he has annexed the said representation. His answer was that the representation is annexed at Annexure-A-1 (page no. 9 of OA). It is simply an affidavit. It is not addressed to anyone. In these circumstances, we find that there is no representation dated 27th May, 2022 pending before the competent authority. The representation which was there before the competent authority Rashmi dated 07th June, 2022 has already been decided. In these circumstances, Diary no. 2206/2026 (OA) is dismissed with no order as to costs.

7. Pending MAs, if any, stand disposed of.

(Sangam Narain Srivastava) (Justice M.G. Sewlikar) Member (A)

Member (J)

nk. Rashmi