Allahabad High Court
Prashant Kumar Srivastava vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ... on 16 July, 2021
Bench: Irshad Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 8
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 14092 of 2021
Petitioner :- Prashant Kumar Srivastava
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Mahila Evam Bal Vikas & Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sudhir Kumar Misra,Siddharth Sankar Pandey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Irshad Ali,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned ACSC for the respondent - State.
2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 06.10.2015, whereby his claim for grant of appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that mother of the petitioner while working on the post of Mukhya Sewika died on 13.05.2000. The petitioner moved an application on 19.04.2004 and when no action was taken, he filed Writ Petition No.5177 of 2005, which was finally decided vide judgment and order dated 18.12.2013, whereby direction was issued that claim of the petitioner shall be considered against the post, wherein no typing test is required. When the order passed by this Court was not complied with, he filed Contempt Petition No.1985 of 2015, wherein compliance affidavit was filed on 30.10.2015 enclosing copy of the order dated 06.10.2015, whereby claim of the petitioner has been rejected. The contempt petition was disposed of on 14.01.2020 on the ground that the opposite parties have complied with the order of this court passed in the writ petition.
4. It is case of the petitioner that copy of the order of rejection of his claim dated 06.10.2015 was first time made available to him along with compliance affidavit filed in the contempt petition dated 30.10.2015 and the contempt petition was disposed of on 14.01.2020. The petitioner has filed supplementary affidavit to explain the delay. In the affidavit, it has been stated that liberty by the contempt court was given to challenge the order dated 30.10.2015, therefore, the present writ petition has been filed.
6. On the other hand, on the point of delay in approaching this Court by filing present writ petition, learned ACSC submitted that once the compliance affidavit was filed on 30.10.2015, the petitioner came to know that his claim has been rejected vide order dated 06.10.2015, then the petitioner would have approached the competent court of law in the year 2015 for redressal of his grievance.
7. He further submitted that compassionate appointment is provided to meet out the hardship, which came into existence due to death of bread earner of the family. In case the petitioner can survive for a period of 15 years, there is no need for consideration of his claim for grant of compassionate appointment.
8. I have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
9. On perusal, it is evident that the contempt petition was finally decided on 14.01.2020 with a liberty to the petitioner to approach appropriate forum. The Contempt Court has not condoned the delay to file this petition in regard to order passed on 30.10.2015.
10. This Court, in a similar matter, in Writ Petition No.12955 (S/S) of 2021 has made following observation vide order dated 28.06.2021:
"32. The father of the petitioner died in harness on 22.07.1985. The petitioner made an application for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds on 02.02.2002. Delay in making the application for appointment on compassionate grounds, is defended on the sole ground, that on the date of death of the father of the petitioner, the petitioner was minor. The petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate grounds when she attained majority.
33. The petitioner has approached this Court more than 15 years after the cause of action arose. The issue of delay and laches on the part of the petitioner, raised by learned Additional Standing Counsel, shall now be considered. The writ petition is barred by delay and laches. The petitioner has approached this Court almost after more than 15 years from the date of death of her father. There is no satisfactory explanation for laches and the delay in filing the petition on the part of the petitioner.
34. In view of the delay in filing the application, for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds, this Court consistent with the narrative in the earlier part of the judgment, finds that the financial crisis, if any, occasioned by the death of the father of the petitioner, was not existing when the application for grant of compassionate grounds appointment was made by the petitioner. There is no lawful basis for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds to the petitioner.
35. Emotional distress and financial penury are two distinct facts. Emotional distress occasioned by the death of the employee is not material for appointment on compassionate grounds. Immediate financial penury, caused to the family by the death of the employee, is the only relevant consideration for appointment under dying-in-harness rules.
36. The courts have consistently observed that delay and laches on part of the litigant will lead to denial of relief. In this regard the Hon'ble Supreme Court has settled the law with clarity and observed it with consistency.
37. In the wake of preceding discussion, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed."
11. In view of the above, this Court is of the opinion that the only purpose to provide compassionate appointment is that the family which is facing immediate financial crisis due to death of bread earner, should be supported by providing an employment to a member of such family to tide over the crisis.
12. In the case in hand, the petitioner and his family survived for a period of more than twenty years and Hon'ble Apex Court as well as this Court has consistently observed that delay and laches on part of the litigant will lead to denial of relief.
13. In view of the above, this Court declines to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction in exercise of power under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
14. The writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 16.7.2021
Adarsh K Singh
