Mr. G.K. Nama vs Mr. D. Bhattacharjee
2022 Latest Caselaw 647 Tri

                              Page 1 of 2


                        HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
                             AGARTALA

                          IA NO.02 OF 2022
                    IN WP(C) NO.586 OF 2018(D/O)

           HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD

Present:
For the Petitioner(s)          : Mr. G.K. Nama, Advocate.

For the Respondent(s)          : Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, G.A.

Mr. P. Saha, Advocate.

11.07.2022

Order

When the case is called, Mr. G.K. Nama, learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner in this instant restoration petition

submits before this Court that he was not the conducting

Advocate in the connected writ petition and thus he prayed to

restore the connected petition on the strength of the contentions

made in the affidavit.

Further on the merits of the case, the learned counsel

appearing for the petitioner submits to consider the case of the

petitioner on compassionate appointment and to condone the

delay of 13 years and 21 days as on the date of application in

the year 2018 before the respondents. The respondents rejected

the case of the petitioner in the year 2018 on the ground that

only 1(one) year relaxation of age would be considered under

Clause-7 in the scheme for compassionate appointment. Since

there is a delay on the part of the petitioner in attaining the age

of majority and then representing the matter before the

respondents, the same was not considered.

Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned G.A. appearing for the State-

respondents upon instruction submits before this Court that the

petitioner is not entitled to the compassionate appointment,

since the case for compassionate appointment would be

considered for the purpose of providing support to the family

member as against the deceased person's employment.

Furthermore, learned G.A. submitted that compassionate

appointment would be considered only if it is immediately

applied. Here is the case of delay and laches on the ground of

the petitioner and thus he is not entitled to a compassionate

appointment.

Heard both sides on facts.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits

before this Court that his argument is supported by several

judgments wherein inordinate delay in applying has been

considered and prays for an accommodation.

Request considered.

List this matter on 12.07.2022(tomorrow) for the

production of the said judgment.

JUDGE

suhanjit