Delhi High Court
Mr. Chetan Singh vs The District & Sessions Judge & ... on 14 January, 2015
Author: Valmiki J. Mehta
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 1584/2014
% 14th January , 2015
MR. CHETAN SINGH ......Petitioner
Through: Mr. Aditya Kala, Adv.
VERSUS
THE DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE & ANR. ...... Respondents
Through: Mr. Nitesh Kumar Singh and Ms.
Latika Chaudhary, Adv. for Ms.
Avnish Ahlawat, Adv.
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 filed under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, petitioner seeks compassionate employment from the respondent
no.1/District & Sessions Judge on the ground that petitioner is the legal heir
of his mother Smt. Sarla, who died in harness.
2. A reading of the writ petition shows that petitioner has not filed
and relied upon the scheme for compassionate appointment to the post on
which the petitioner is seeking compassionate employment. Filing of the
WPC 1584/2014 Page 1 of 3
scheme by the petitioner showing as to how the petitioner complies with the
terms of the same was a sine qua non for the petitioner to get relief in this
writ petition.
3. On behalf of the respondents it is stated that the petitioner was
charged with the murder of his mother and was in jail for a period of six
years, but he was thereafter acquitted, and that the compassionate
employment cannot be granted because the scheme requires application to
be made within six months of the date of the death of the employee who dies
in harness but in the present case the application was filed not within six
months but after six years of the date of the death of the employee/Smt.
Sarla. Respondents have also stated in the counter-affidavit that one of the
reasons for non grant of compassionate employment was that the petitioner
is not in a dire financial condition because in the present case the petitioner
is in fact not only an owner of an LIG flat, but the deceased employee Smt.
Sarla was survived by two sons one of which was the petitioner and whereas
the other legal heir being the brother of the petitioner was given family
pension till the brother died about 2 ½ years prior to filing of the counter-
affidavit, the petitioner was given gratuity amount on account of death of
his mother.
WPC 1584/2014 Page 2 of 3
4. The impugned order dated 29.01.2014 passed by the
respondents denying the employment to the petitioner reads as under:-
"As per order of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 21.01.2014 on the
subject cited above, the undersigned intimates you the reason of
rejection of your application for compassionate appointment by the
Ld. District & Sessions Judge (Hqs.), Delhi dated 25.10.2013 on the
recommendation of Compassionate Appointment Committee dated
08.10.2013 as under:-
"The application is filed beyond time and the applicant is
aged 30 years. He is the sole-heir of the LIG flat as all family
members have expired. At present he is sole surviving legal heir of
his father and thus he is owner of the flat. He is not recommended
for appointment".
5. In view of the aforesaid facts, I do not find any illegality or
perversity in the impugned order of the respondents dated 29.1.2014 denying
employment to the petitioner, not only because the application is time barred
as per the extant compassionate scheme but also because petitioner is not
found to be in dire financial straits for being entitled to compassionate
employment.
6. Dismissed.
JANUARY 14, 2015 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
ib
