SPA/157/2022
2022 Latest Caselaw 2421 UK

                    Office Notes,
                   reports, orders
                   or proceedings
SL.
         Date       or directions                      COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No
                   and Registrar's
                      order with
                     Signatures
      02.08.2022                     SPA No. 157 of 2022
                                     Hon'ble Vipin Sanghi, C.J.
                                     Hon'ble R.C. Khulbe, J.

Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for the appellant.

Mr. Bharat Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no.1.

Mr. K.N. Joshi, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State-respondent nos.2 and 3.

Delay Condonation Application (IA No.01 of 2022)

Learned counsel for the respondents, do not fairly oppose the delay in preferring the present special appeal.

For the reasons stated in the affidavit filed in support of the delay condonation application, the delay condonation application is allowed, and the delay of 07 days in preferring the special appeal is, hereby, condoned.

SPA No.157 of 2022

The submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the impugned judgment has been passed by the learned Single Judge without granting an opportunity to the appellant-respondent no.3 in the writ proceedings to file a counter-affidavit.

Learned counsel submits that the respondent's application for appointment on compassionate basis was rejected, and the rejection order was communicated to him way back on 07.08.2017. He preferred the writ petition highly belatedly in the year 2021, almost after four years. Firstly, the writ petition was barred with delay and laches.

He further submits that compassionate appointment is granted only with a view to alleviate immediate financial distress in which the family of the deceased government servant plunged on the ground of untimely demise.

However, in the present case, filing of the writ petition after four years of the rejection of the application itself shows that there was no grave urgency remaining. Moreover, the respondent-writ petitioner's mother was serving as an employee of the Municipal Corporation when the application was made, and therefore, the same was rejected. He further submits that the respondent-writ petitioner's mother is drawing not only her pension, but also the family pension, as a widow of the respondent-writ petitioner's father, which is a substantial amount, and in any case, the respondent-writ petitioner was not entitled for compassionate appointment. He further submits that the limited quota/seats, meant for compassionate appointments, are to be offered to the genuinely deserving case, and not a case like the respondent- writ petitioner.

Learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner seeks an adjournment to file his objections.

Let the same be filed, positively, within four weeks.

List this case on 23.11.2022.

In the meantime, the operation of the impugned judgment dated 09.11.2021, shall remain stayed.

It is made clear that no further adjournment shall be granted to the respondent-writ petitioner.

   (R.C. Khulbe, J.)          (Vipin Sanghi, C.J.)
      02.08.2022                    02.08.2022

NISHANT