Sandeep Kumar Sonkar vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 9529 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 34
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 11551 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Sandeep Kumar Sonkar
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Pramod Kumar Srivastava
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

Herd learned counsel for petitioner and learned standing counsel for State-respondents.

Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 22.09.2020 by which appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected.

Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that father of petitioner died in year 2003 and at that time, petitioner was minor. After attaining majority, petitioner has filed application for compassionate appointment which was rejected on the ground that application has been filed beyond time. It is next submitted that Government Order dated 24.09.2015 provides that on special circumstances, delay may be condoned, but without considering the same, application of petitioner has been rejected only on the ground of delay of 1 year, 1 month and 9 days. It is further submitted that delay has been explained in paragraph nos. 21 & 22 of the writ petition and submitted that mother of petitioner is getting a small pension and some how maintaining her large family. Therefore, under such circumstances, impugned order is bad and liable to be set aside.

Learned standing counsel submitted that first of all, it was required on the part of mother of petitioner to submit application for compassionate appointment in the concerned Department and the Department would see as to whether compassionate appointment can be given to an illiterate lady or not. Mother of petitioner is also receiving pension of Rs. 9,630/- per month. Further, delay so explained in the affidavit is also not acceptable. Apart that, petitioner is coming before this Court after around two years from the date of passing of impugned order without explaining any reason of delay. Lastly, it is submitted that in the light of judgment of Apex Court passed in Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others vs. Nirval Singh (2019) 6 SCC 774, State of J.K. and others vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir (2006) 5 SCC 766 and Steel Authority of India Vs. Gouri Devi passed in Civil Appeal No. 6910 of 2021, petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment after such an inordinate delay.

I have considered the submissions advanced by counsel perused the the records as well as judgment relied upon.

There is no doubt on this point that petition has been filed at a very belated stage and explanation of delay given in the affidavit cannot be accepted. Therefore, in the light of facts of the case as well as judgments relied upon by learned standing counsel, no relief can be granted to the petitioner after such an inordinate delay.

Under such facts of the case, writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly, dismissed.

No order as to costs.

Order Date :- 6.8.2022

Sartaj