The Principal Chief Commissioner Of CGST And Cx vs. Arpita Ghosh And Ors

Facts

The petitioner, the Principal Chief Commissioner of CGST & CX, filed a writ petition challenging an order passed by the Tribunal on March 7, 2022. The Tribunal had directed the petitioner to consider the respondent's claim for compassionate appointment based on the scheme in operation at the time of death and the family's financial condition, without insisting on other conditions. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Departmental Screening Committee considered the respondent's application and found her fit for appointment as Havaldar (Group-C) subject to fulfilling conditions in the Central Excise and Customs Havaldar & Head Havaldar (Group-C post) Recruitment Rules, 2015, as amended on August 30, 2022. This decision was communicated to the respondent on February 6, 2023. The petitioner stated that since the respondent's case was considered and a communication was provided, there was no need to further examine the legality of the impugned order.

Held

The Court noted that subsequent to the filing of the writ petition, the Departmental Screening Committee had considered the respondent's application for compassionate appointment. The respondent was found fit for appointment as Havaldar (Group-C), subject to fulfilling the conditions stipulated in the relevant recruitment rules. This decision was communicated to the respondent. The petitioner submitted that in view of this subsequent development, the grievance of the writ petitioner no longer survived. The Court accepted this submission, finding that the subsequent consideration and communication rendered the original challenge moot. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn.

Key Issues

1. Whether the petitioner's grievance survives in light of subsequent developments during the pendency of the writ petition. Petitioner's argument: The petitioner contended that the respondent's case for compassionate appointment has already been considered by the Departmental Screening Committee, and a communication indicating this has been provided. Therefore, the original grievance leading to the writ petition no longer exists, and the petition can be withdrawn. Respondent's argument: The judgment does not record any specific arguments made by the respondent regarding the survival of the grievance. However, the subsequent actions taken by the petitioner suggest an acknowledgment of the respondent's claim being processed.