Om Pal vs J V V N Ltd Andanr
2022 Latest Caselaw 2646 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

              S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12247/2016

Om Pal son of Lt. Sh. Vinod Kumar Sharma, resident of Village
Maghtai, Post Bichpuri, Tehsil and Distt. Agra.
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
1. Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd., through its Managing
Director, Vidyut Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur.
2. Secretary (Admn.), Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. Vidyut
Bhawan, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur.
                                                                ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s)        :     Mr. Vikas Yadav
For Respondent(s)        :     Ms. Anuradha, through VC



        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND

                                    Order

30/03/2022

This petition has been filed by the petitioner with the

following prayers:-

"It is, therefore, prayed that this writ petition may kindly be accepted and allowed, relevant record may kindly be called for and be perused, if this Hon'ble Court so pleases and;

(i) By issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, letter/order dated 13.01.2016 may kindly be declared arbitrary and illegal and same may kindly be quashed and set aside.

(ii) By issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents kindly be directed to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner or any suitable post in place of his deceased father with all consequential benefits.

(iii) Any other order which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner."

(2 of 5) [CW-12247/2016]

Counsel for the petitioner submits that father of the

petitioner expired on 03.03.2002 and thereafter, his mother

submitted an application for getting compassionate appointment

but the respondents did not pass any order and awaiting orders

for getting compassionate appointment, his mother expired in the

year 2009. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner

was minor when his father expired in the year 2002 and after

attaining the age of majority the petitioner submitted an

application in the office of the respondents on 20.11.2012 and

226.02.2014 but no orders were passed, hence, on 19.05.2014,

he submitted an application in the office of the respondents for

giving relaxation in the rules for appointing him on compassionate

basis. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the application filed

by the petitioner was rejected by the respondents vide order

dated 13.01.2016 by saying that earlier mother of the petitioner

was offered compassionate appointment vide order dated

03.03.2002 but since she failed to join the service, hence her

order of appointment was cancelled. He further submits that the

respondents never communicated the order of compassionate

appointment to the mother of the petitioner and the petitioner or

his mother were not aware about the appointment order dated

03.03.2002.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submitted

that after death of the father of the petitioner, the department

passed an office order on 24.02.2004 in favour of the mother of

the petitioner by granting her compassionate appointment but she

failed to join the duties, hence, as per condition No.13 of the

appointment order her appointment stood cancelled automatically.

She further submitted that there is a delay of 12 years in filing the

(3 of 5) [CW-12247/2016]

application by the petitioner for getting compassionate

appointment and compassionate appointment cannot be claim

again and again.

Heard and considered the submissions of both sides.

From the facts narrated in the writ petition, it emerges that

the deceased-employee died on 03.03.2002 while he was in

service. Thereafter, mother of the petitioner submitted an

application for getting compassionate appointment. Thereafter, the

respondents issued an office order on 24.02.2004 of giving

compassionate appointment to the mother of the petitioner but

she failed to join her duties within one month, hence, in view of

the condition No.13 of the appointment order, her appointment

stood cancelled automatically.

It appears that neither the petitioner nor his mother did not

bother to inquire from the office of the respondents about the

status of the application submitted by mother of the petitioner. It

appears that the petitioner was waiting for attaining the age of

majority and therefore after a delay of 12 years from the date of

death of his father, he submitted an application for getting

compassionate appointment. It is the settled position of law that

delay in pursuing the claim would mitigate the claim for

compassionate appointment as the very objective of providing

compassionate appointment to the family would extinguished. The

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Punjab State Power

Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Vs. Nirvan Singh, reported in 2019(6) SCC

774, has held that on the ground of delay itself, the legal heir of

the deceased employee would not be entitled to get appointment

on compassionate ground.

(4 of 5) [CW-12247/2016]

In the case of State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors. Vs. Sajad

Ahmed Mir reported in 2006 (5) SCC 766, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court has observed that once it is proved that despite of death of

the bread winner, the family members survived and the

substantial period is over, there is no need to make appointment

on compassionate ground at the cost of interest of several other

persons ignorning the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of

India. In the case of "Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana"

reported in 1994 (4) SCC 138, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held

that the object of providing compassionate appointment to the

family is to get over the financial crises which it faced at the time

of death of the sole bread winner. The compassionate appointment

cannot be claimed and offered after a lapse of long time and after

the crisis is over.

Similarly in the case of Indian Bank & Ors., Vs. Promila &

Anr. Reported in 2020 (2) SCC 729 it has been held that though

the Court has sympathy with the family members of the deceased,

who face the death of the deceased, but sympathy alone cannot

be given remedy to such family members and it is not for the

Courts to substitute a scheme to add or subtract from the terms

thereof in exercise of judicial review.

From the perusal of the documents available on record, it is

clear that the deceased-employee expired on 03.03.2002 and

after his death compassionate appointment was offered to the

mother of the petitioner on 24.02.2004 but she chose not to join

the services, hence, the appointment order stood cancelled

automatically in view of condition No.13 of the office order.

Thereafter, the petitioner remained mum for a period of more

than 12 years and suddenly he woke up and submitted

(5 of 5) [CW-12247/2016]

applications in the office of respondents, hence, respondents have

not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order dated

13.01.2016.

Looking to the material available on record and after going

through the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Suprme Court

referred in the foregoing paras, this Court is of the considered

opinion that the contentions put forward by the counsel for the

petitioner, do not carry any merit. Thus, this Court is not able to

accept the claim of the petitioner for granting compassionate

appointment after a great lapse of 20 years.

In the result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is of

without any substance and the same is dismissed accordingly.

Pending applications, if any also stand dismissed.

(ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J

HEENA GANDHI /62

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)