Saturday, 16, May, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Vishwanath Dayal Ram vs Union Of India
2023 Latest Caselaw 1377 Jhar

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 1377 Jhar
Judgement Date : 28 March, 2023

Jharkhand High Court
Vishwanath Dayal Ram vs Union Of India on 28 March, 2023
                         1




 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
            W.P. (S) No. 4140 of 2022
                       ------

Vishwanath Dayal Ram, aged about 50 years, son of Late Saligram Mochi, resident of Village: Dugda, PO & PS: Dugda, District: Bokaro. ... ... Petitioner Versus

1.Union of India, represented through General Manager, East Central Railway, PO & PS: Hajipur, District - Hajipur.

2.Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway, D.R.M. Building, Dhanbad Division, PO & PS: Dhanbad, District - Dhanbad

3.Senior Personnel Officer, East Central Railway, Dhanbad Division, PO & PS: Dhanbad, District-Dhanbad.

                            ...    ...    ...    Respondents
                        -------

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHASH CHAND

-------

For the Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Sahani, Advocate Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, Adv.

Order No. 05/Dated 28th March, 2023 The instant writ petition, under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India, has been preferred for quashing order

dated 10.04.2019 passed by learned Central Administrative

Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Ranchi in O.A. No. 329 of 2019

whereby his claim for appointment on compassionate

ground has been dismissed on the ground of limitation.

2. Admitted case herein is that the father of the

petitioner died in harness sometimes in the year 2002.

Thereafter, the petitioner submitted representation before

the respondents on 02.11.2022 which was rejected vide

order dated 27.09.2005 but the writ petitioner did not

challenge order dated 27.09.2005 fairly for a long period of

10-11 years and on 27.06.2016 filed another representation

but when no decision was taken thereupon, the petitioner

moved before learned Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 329 of

2019. The learned Tribunal, taking into consideration the

fact that the application has been filed after lapse of 11

years has dismissed the original application, which is

under challenge before this Court.

3. Law is well settled by taking into consideration the

very object and intent of the appointment on

compassionate ground, which is to be provided to grant

succor to the dependent of the deceased-employee, as has

been held in the judgment rendered in Umesh Kumar

Nagpal v. State of Haryana [(1994) 4 SCC 138] wherein

at paragraph 6, it has been held as under:

"6. For these very reasons, the compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over."

4. Herein, even though the father of the petitioner died

in the year 2002 and the representation for grant of

compassionate ground was filed on 02.11.2002, which was

rejected on 27.09.2005 but the writ petitioner has accepted

the said order of rejection of appointment on

compassionate ground fairly for 10-11 years and did not

challenge the same before the Court of law rather he filed

another representation on 27.06.2016 for the same relief

but when said relief was denied, the petitioner moved

before the learned Tribunal.

5. The learned Tribunal, taking into consideration the

aforesaid reason rejected the original application filed by

the petitioner, which according to our considered view

cannot be suffer from error reason being that very purpose

and object of appointment on compassionate ground is not

found to be available since the dependent of deceased

family since has been able to survive for more than a

decade there is no reason to provide appointment on

compassionate ground since compassionate appointment is

not alternative source of appointment.

6. Accordingly, there is no reason to interfere with the

order passed by the Tribunal.

7. Accordingly, the instant writ petition, devoid of

merit, is dismissed.

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.)

(Subhash Chand, J.)

Alankar/-

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : Smt. Nirmala Devi Bam Memorial International Moot Court Competition

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter