Delhi High Court
Babu Ram Thapa vs Food Corporation Of India on 17 February, 2017
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) No. 1369/2017
% 17th February, 2017
BABU RAM THAPA ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Dharmender Tyagi, Adv.
versus
FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA ..... Respondent
Through: Ms. Harminder Oberoi, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. Petitioner by means of this writ petition under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India prays for compassionate appointment on the
ground of death of his father on 18.5.1975 while working with the
respondent/employer/Food Corporation of India.
2. It is seen that today in 2017 around 41 years have passed since
the death of the father of the petitioner and on account of which the
petitioner seeks compassionate appointment. Even taking the petitioner is
major from 1980, and thus 36 years have expired since the petitioner
became a major.
3. Compassionate appointment is not a mode of normal
appointment or regular recruitment. Compassionate appointment is granted
only if specific requirements of grant of compassionate appointment are
satisfied by a person, and in this writ petition I do not find that petitioner has
stated as to which is the policy of the respondent for compassionate
appointment, how the petitioner satisfies the criteria for getting
compassionate appointment, compassionate appointment entitlement is for
how much period after the death of the employee etc etc. Accordingly,
therefore, on account of the petitioner not setting out a legal cause of action
as to what is the compassionate appointment policy and how the petitioner
satisfies the same, this writ petition cannot be entertained and is accordingly
dismissed.
4. It is also seen that this writ petition would be barred by delay
and laches because of the correspondence which is relied upon by the
petitioner for entitlement of compassionate appointment including of some
correspondence being admissions of the respondent. The correspondence is
from the year 1978 till 1992 when the mother of the petitioner expired on
27.3.1992. There are further references in the writ petition of
correspondence and recommendations for the petitioner to get
compassionate appointment and petitioner's writing letters from 1996 to
2004. After 2004 there is a complete silence till about 10 years as the next
letter of the petitioner is dated 18.8.2014 seeking compassionate
appointment. Clearly, therefore, simply by writing letters, and with the last
gap of around 10 years from the earlier letter of the year 2004 of the
petitioner, and that too when it is not stated as to how petitioner can get
compassionate appointment in terms of the applicable policy, petitioner
hence is not entitled to relief of compassionate appointment.
5. One of the basic objects of grant of compassionate appointment
is for the family of the deceased employee who dies in harness to ride over
financial crises on account of death of the employee in harness. The
concerned employee being the father of the petitioner has died as stated
above 41 years back. Today, therefore it cannot be argued that there is an
issue of financial hardship of the family after 41 years of the death of the
employee.
6. Dismissed.
FEBRUARY 17, 2017 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
ib
