Gursewak Singh vs Food Corporation Of India And Ors
2024 Latest Caselaw 6021 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Gursewak Singh vs Food Corporation Of India And Ors on 18 March, 2024

                                                                 Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038488




CWP-6433-2024                                1                        2024:PHHC:038488


               IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                            AT CHANDIGARH

154                                                 CWP-6433-2024
                                                    Date of decision: 18.03.2024


GURSEWAK SINGH                                                  ....PETITIONER
                                   Vs.




FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND ORS.                              ...RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present :      Mr.Surinder Garg, Advocate
               for the petitioner.

               Mr. Anurag Jain, Advocate and
               Mr. Rahul Dahiya, Advocate
               for the respondents.

                     ****

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J (ORAL)

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the

Constitution of India is seeking directions to respondents to appoint him on

compassionate ground.

2. The petitioner is claiming compassionate appointment on the ground

of death of his father who was working as Sardar in DPS Labour with respondent-

FCI. He passed away in harness on 10.08.2003. The petitioner filed an application

seeking compassionate appointment but respondent did not respond and left with

no other option, he served legal notice dated 22.11.2023 (Annexure P-4) upon the

respondents.

3. The father of the petitioner died in the year 2003 and legal notice was

served upon respondents on 22.11.2023. The petitioner has approached this Court

in March' 2024. On being asked reason of delay, Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate

1 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038488

CWP-6433-2024 2 2024:PHHC:038488

could not advance any plausible reason for the aforesaid delay of more than 20

years.

4. No hard-and-fast rule can be laid down as to when the High Court

should refuse to exercise its jurisdiction in favour of a party who moves it after

considerable delay and is otherwise guilty of laches. Discretion must be exercised

judiciously and reasonably. In the event that the claim made by the applicant is

legally sustainable, delay should be condoned. Where illegality is manifest, cannot

be sustained on the sole ground of laches. When substantial justice and technical

considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice

deserves to be preferred. State cannot deprive vested right because of a non-

deliberate delay.

5. In Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Dugal Kumar (2008) 14 SCC 295,

Supreme Court has considered scope of interference in case of delay and laches.

Court has held:

"24. As to delay and laches on the part of the writ petitioner,

there is substance in the argument of learned counsel for the

appellant Company. It is well settled that under Article 226 of

the Constitution, the power of a High Court to issue an

appropriate writ, order or direction is discretionary. One of the

grounds to refuse relief by a writ court is that the petitioner is

guilty of delay and laches. It is imperative, where the petitioner

invokes extraordinary remedy under Article 226 of the

Constitution, that he should come to the court at the earliest

reasonably possible opportunity. Inordinate delay in making the

motion for a writ is indeed an adequate ground for refusing to

exercise discretion in favour of the applicant."

2 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038488

CWP-6433-2024 3 2024:PHHC:038488

6. In Tilok Chand Moti Chand v. H.B. Munshi (1969) 1 SCC 110 and

Rabindranath Bose v. Union of India (1970) 1 SCC 84, Supreme Court has ruled

that even in cases of violation or infringement of fundamental rights, a writ court

may take into account delay and laches on the part of the petitioner in approaching

the court and if there is gross or unexplained delay, the court may refuse to grant

relief in favour of such petitioner.

7. In Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board v. T.T.

Murali Babu (2014) 4 SCC 108, Supreme Court has ruled:

'16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly

brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation

offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear

in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable

jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the

rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive

to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without

adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or

pleasure, the court would be under legal obligation to

scrutinise whether the lis at a belated stage should be

entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of

equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be

fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only

invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the

court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a

litigant--a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely,

'procrastination is the greatest thief of time' and second, law

does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does

bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis.'

3 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038488

CWP-6433-2024 4 2024:PHHC:038488

8. In Union of India v. N. Murugesan, (2022) 2 SCC 25, court has

observed that a neglect on the part of a party to do an act which law requires, must

stand in his way for getting the relief or remedy. The Court laid down two essential

factors i.e. first, the length of the delay and second, the developments during the

intervening period. Delay in availing the remedy would amount to waiver of such

right. Relevant extracts of the judgment read as:

"20. The principles governing delay, laches, and acquiescence are overlapping and interconnected on many occasions. However, they have their distinct characters and distinct elements. One can say that delay is the genus to which laches and acquiescence are species. Similarly, laches might be called a genus to a species by name acquiescence. However, there may be a case where acquiescence is involved, but not laches. These principles are common law principles, and perhaps one could identify that these principles find place in various statutes which restrict the period of limitation and create non- consideration of condonation in certain circumstances. They are bound to be applied by way of practice requiring prudence of the court than of a strict application of law. The underlying principle governing these concepts would be one of estoppel. The question of prejudice is also an important issue to be taken note of by the court.

21. The word "laches" is derived from the French language meaning "remissness and slackness". It thus involves unreasonable delay or negligence in pursuing a claim involving an equitable relief while causing prejudice to the other party. It is neglect on the part of a party to do an act which law requires while asserting a right, and therefore, must stand in the way of the party getting relief or remedy.

22. Two essential factors to be seen are the length of the delay and the nature of acts done during the interval. As stated, it would also involve acquiescence on the part of

4 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038488

CWP-6433-2024 5 2024:PHHC:038488

the party approaching the court apart from the change in position in the interregnum. Therefore, it would be unjustifiable for a Court of Equity to confer a remedy on a party who knocks its doors when his acts would indicate a waiver of such a right. By his conduct, he has put the other party in a particular position, and therefore, it would be unreasonable to facilitate a challenge before the court. Thus, a man responsible for his conduct on equity is not expected to be allowed to avail a remedy."

9. The object of compassionate appointment or ex-gratia payment is to

protect family of the deceased employee from destitution, penury and starvation. In

the object clause of the policy framed by the respondent, it has been specifically

noticed that object of the appointment on compassionate ground is not to give a

member of the deceased employee's family a post, much less a post for a post held

by the deceased but to provide relief to the family of a deceased employee to tide

over the sudden crisis brought about by his/her premature death. The relief

envisaged would provide the distressed family immediate succor and financial

assistance to recover from the unexpected deprivation of the income of the sole

bread-winner of the family.

10. The Apex Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal Versus State of Haryana;

(1994) 4 SCC 138, has held that appointment on compassionate ground is a

concession and cannot be claimed as a matter of right especially after passage of

substantial time. The relevant extracts of the said judgment read as:-

"2 The question relates to the considerations which should guide while giving appointment in public services on compassionate ground. It appears that there has been a good deal of obfuscation on the issue. As a rule, appointments in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other

5 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038488

CWP-6433-2024 6 2024:PHHC:038488

consideration is permissible. Neither the Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules for the post. However, to this general rule which is to be followed strictly in every case, there are some exceptions carved out in the interests of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependants of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both e nds meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. The posts in Classes III and IV are the lowest posts in non-manual and manual categories and hence they alone can be offered on compassionate grounds, the object being to relieve the family, of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. The provision of employment in such lowest posts by making an exception to the rule is justifiable and valid since it is not discriminatory. The favourable treatment given to such dependant of the deceased employee in such posts has a rational nexus

6 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038488

CWP-6433-2024 7 2024:PHHC:038488

with the object sought to be achieved, viz., relief against destitution. No other posts are expected or required to be given by the public authorities for the purpose. It must be remembered in this connection that as against the destitute family of the deceased there are millions of other families which are equally, if not more destitute. The exception to the rule made in favour of the family of the deceased employee is in consideration of the services rendered by him and the legitimate expectations, and the change in the status and affairs, of the family engendered by the erstwhile employment which are suddenly upturned."

11. The object of the compassionate appointment is to protect family of

the deceased from being driven to destitution and penury. Petitioner's father

passed away more than 20 years back and at present, he is 40 years old. It seems

that he wants to make hay at this belated stage which is impermissible in equity as

well law.

12. In the wake of above-referral judgments and considering inordinate

delay on the part of petitioner, this Court does not find it appropriate to invoke its

extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction. The present petition deserves to be dismissed and

accordingly dismissed.

18.03.2024                                              [JAGMOHAN BANSAL]
anju                                                        JUDGE

             Whether speaking/reasoned            Yes
             Whether reportable                   Yes




                                                             Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:038488

                                         7 of 7