Patna High Court
Neelu Hembrom vs The State Of Bihar on 11 February, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7962 of 2021
======================================================
Neelu Hembrom, D/o Rajmahal Hembrom, resident of village- Mahuatar,
Police Station- Sundarpahari, Post Office- Ghatiari, District- Godda
(Jharkhand)
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary Home (Police) Department, Government of Bihar,
Patna
3. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna
4. The Inspector General of Police (Welfare) Head Quarter, Bihar, Patna
5. The Deputy Inspector General (Personnel) Bihar, Patna
6. The Superintendent of Police, Rohtash
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Md.N.H.Khan, SC-1
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 11-02-2022
The matter is heard via video conferencing due to
circumstances prevailing on account of the COVID-19
pandemic.
2. In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the
following reliefs:-
" (I) To quash the order dated 27.09.2019 of
Respondent No. 6 as contained in Memo No. 4297 of
Superintendent of Police, Rohtas and where under the
petitioner's application for compassionate appointment
have been rejected on the ground of employment of
petitioner's elder brother in service.
(II) For giving direction to the concerned
respondent authorities to give compassionate appointment
to the petitioner for which he is legally entitled in the
present facts and circumstances of the case."
3. Undisputed facts are that petitioner's father Late
Patna High Court CWJC No.7962 of 2021 dt.11-02-2022
Rajmahal Hembrom died on 03.08.2009. The petitioner is stated
to have submitted application for compassionate appointment in
the year 2009. Copy of the application is not made available, the
petitioner's application for compassionate appointment was
rejected on 27.09.2009 on the ground that petitioner's elder
brother is already in service.
4. No doubt the reasons assigned for rejection of the
petitioner's compassionate appointment in terms of the claims
of the compassionate appointment at the same time one cannot
ignore the delay and latches on the part of the petitioner's.
Petitioner's father died on 03.08.2009. Thus, the petitioner's
family survived for these many years.
5. Apex Court time and again held that compassionate
appointment is not a fundamental right and the concerned
person may not have a vested right to seek compassionate
appointment.
6. In the light of these facts and circumstances even
though reasoning assigned for petitioner's compassionate
appointment, his elder brother was in service at the same time
one cannot ignore delay and latches in respect of entertaining
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution in the light of the
decision of Apex Court decision in the case of State of Jammu
and Kashmir v. R.K. Zalpuri and others reported in AIR 2016
SC 3006 paragraph-20 has held as under:
"20. Having stated thus, it is useful to refer to a
passage from city and Industrial Development Corporation vs.
Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala and others {(2009) 1 SCC
168}, wherein this Court while dwelling upon jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution, has expressed thus:-
" The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under
Article 226 is duty-bound to consider whether:
(a) Adjudication of writ petition involves any
complex and disputed question of facts and whether they can
Patna High Court CWJC No.7962 of 2021 dt.11-02-2022
be satisfactory resolved;
(b) The petition reveals all material facts;
(c) The petitioner has any alternative or effective
remedy for the resolution of the dispute;"
7. Honb'le Apex Court in the following decisions
elaborately considered delay and latches:-
"(I). Union of India and another vs. Shashank
Goswami and others reported in [(2012)11 SCC 307].
(II). Shreejith vs. Dy. Div. (Edwin) Kerala [(2012)
7 SCC 248].
(III). Dhall Ram vs. Union of India [(1997) 11
SCC 201]."
8. In the light of these facts and circumstances,
petitioner has not made out a case. Accordingly, the instant
petition stands dismissed on the ground of delay and latches.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
khushbu/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date
Transmission Date
