Allahabad High Court
Pradeep Kumar vs Central Administrative Tribunal ... on 5 March, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:34277-DB
Chief Justice's Court
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2792 of 2025
Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar
Respondent :- Central Administrative Tribunal Allahabad and 4 others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajiv Asthana
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I., Ajay Kumar Gautam
Hon'ble Arun Bhansali, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Kshitij Shailendra, J.
1. This petition is directed against order dated 29.11.2024 passed in Original Application No. 543 of 2023 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, whereby the O.A. filed by the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment has been dismissed.
2. Petitioner's father was working as permanent machinist under the respondents and died while in service on 28.04.1997. At the time of death of his father, the petitioner was minor being 16 years old. After attaining the age of majority, he submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 21.08.1999 followed by another application in prescribed form in 2000. It is claimed that despite repeated reminders, no action was taken by the respondents and in 2008, the petitioner approached Assistant Labour Commissioner. Though a settlement was arrived at, it is claimed that the same was not honoured. The petitioner filed Original Application No.330/01160 of 2009, which came to be decided on 03.12.2019, whereby the rejection order passed by the respondents was quashed and they were directed to reconsider the case. After reconsideration, the claim was again rejected on 21.02.2023 on the ground of passage of time. Feeling aggrieved, the present O.A. was filed.
3. The Tribunal, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that looking to the nature of appointment, which was sought i.e. compassionate appointment which was not a right and as 27 years have passed since the death of the bread earner and the petitioner and his family had survived, the order rejecting the candidature did not call for any interference and consequently, dismissed the O.A.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner made vehement submissions that there was no delay on part of the petitioner, as he had applied in time i.e. immediately on attaining the age of majority. However, the respondents did not decide the application and Original Application though was filed in the year 2009, the same came to be decided in the year 2019 and thereafter the present O.A. was filed after the representation of the petitioner was again rejected in the year 2023 and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer for the inaction of the respondents.
5. Counsel for the respondents supported the order impugned. Submissions were made that law with regard to grant of compassionate appointment is well settled and only on account of the fact that the petitioner had applied in the year 1999 itself is not sufficient to seek compassionate appointment after a passage of 27 years and, therefore, the petition deserves dismissal.
6. We have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
7. The aspect of the delay in filing the writ petition in relation to passing of orders by the authorities and its ultimate impact on the claim for compassionate appointment has been examined by Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of West Bengal Vs. Debabrata Tiwari and others : AIR 2023 SC 1467, wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court referred to the judgment in State of Uttaranchal Vs. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari : (2013) 12 SCC 179, wherein it was observed that even if the court or tribunal directs for consideration of representations relating to a stale claim or dead grievance it does not give rise to a fresh cause of action. The dead cause of action cannot rise like a phoenix and a mere submission of representation to the competent authority does not arrest time and came to the following conclusion:
"10. Applying the said ratio to the facts of the present case, we hold that the Respondents-Writ Petitioners, upon submitting their applications in the year 2006-2005 did nothing further to pursue the matter, till the year 2015 i.e., for a period of ten years. Notwithstanding the tardy approach of the authorities of the Appellant-State in dealing with their applications, the Respondent-Writ Petitioners delayed approaching the High Court seeking a writ in the nature of a mandamus against the authorities of the State. In fact, such a prolonged delay in approaching the High Court, may even be regarded as a waiver of a remedy, as discernible by the conduct of the Respondents-Writ Petitioners. Such a delay would disentitle the Respondents-Writ Petitioners to the discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. Further, the order of the High Court dated 17th March, 2015, whereby the writ petition filed by some of the Respondents herein was disposed of with a direction to the Director of Local Bodies, Government of West Bengal to take a decision as to the appointment of the Respondents-Writ Petitioners, cannot be considered to have the effect of revival of the cause of action.
?????
12. In the present case, the applications for compassionate appointment were made by the Respondents-Writ Petitioners in the year 2005-2006. Admittedly, the first concrete step taken by the Chairman of the Burdwan Municipality was in the year 2013, when the said authority forwarded a list of candidates to be approved by the Director of Local Bodies, Burdwan Municipality. The Respondents-Writ Petitioners knocked on the doors of the High Court of Calcutta only in the year 2015, i.e., after a lapse of nearly ten years from the date of making the application for compassionate appointment. The Respondents-Writ Petitioners were not prudent enough to approach the Courts sooner, claiming that no concrete step had been taken by the Appellant-State in furtherance of the application by seeking a Writ in the nature of Mandamus.
13. The sense of immediacy in the matter of compassionate appointment has been lost in the present case. This is attributable to the authorities of the Appellant-State as well as the Respondents-Writ Petitioners. Now, entertaining a claim which was made in 2005-2006, in the year 2023, would be of no avail, because admittedly, the Respondents-Writ Petitioners have been able to eke out a living even though they did not successfully get appointed to the services of the Municipality on compassionate grounds. Hence, we think that this is therefore not fit cases to direct that the claim of the Respondents-Writ Petitioners for appointments on compassionate grounds, be considered or entertained."
8. From the above law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court on the above aspect of compassionate appointment, no case for interference in the order impugned is made out.
9. The petition has no substance, the same is, therefore, dismissed.
Order Date :- 5.3.2025
SL
(Kshitij Shailendra, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)
