Smt. Reeta vs Delhi Agricultural Marketing ...
2013 Latest Caselaw 3395 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+                  W.P.(C) No.1343 /2011

%                                                      1st August, 2013


SMT. REETA                                    ..... Petitioner
                          Through:       Mr. Sachin Chauhan, Advocate.


                          versus

DELHI AGRICULTURAL MARKETING BOARD AND ORS.
                                          ..... Respondents

Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat, Advocate.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. By this writ petition, the petitioner claims compassionate

appointment on the ground that her husband expired while working with the

respondent No.1.

2. Petitioner was in fact given compassionate appointment by the

respondent No.1 in the year 1998 but the petitioner did not join and when

the petitioner wanted to join in the year 1999, it transpired that the

petitioner had already remarried and was carrying a child from the second

marriage.

3. Though initially I was inclined to agree with the petitioner

because remarriage of a widow should in fact be encouraged, however, I

cannot overlook two important reasons and because of which I have to

dismiss the writ petition. The first reason is that the object to compassionate

appointment is to prevent penury and poverty in the family of the deceased

employee caused on account of death of the earning member/employee. In

this case, however the death took place in the year 1995 and today we are in

the year 2013 i.e about 18 years later. The entire basis and object of

compassionate appointment therefore does not exist in the present case. The

second reason is that even if I overlook the first aspect and would be

inclined to grant compassionate appointment, however, in this case

petitioner after getting compassionate appointment did not join in the year

1998 and she tried to join in the year 1999 and which was declined by the

respondents. The first representation which was made by the petitioner for

again seeking compassionate appointment was in the year 2010 i.e more

than 11 years later and this writ petition is filed in the year 2011. Therefore,

this writ petition is also liable to be dismissed on account of delay and

laches. In my opinion, both the reasons for dismissal of writ petition in fact

dovetail into each other.

4. In view of the above, there is no merit in the writ petition and

the same is therefore dismissed, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J AUGUST 01, 2013 Ne