Uttarakhand High Court
SPA/449/2019 on 12 June, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI
AND
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAKESH THAPLIYAL
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 449 OF 2019
12TH JUNE, 2023
BETWEEN:
Sushila Devi .....Appellant.
And
Uttaranchal Power Corporation Ltd. & others
....Respondents.
Counsel for the Appellant : Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior
Counsel assisted by Mr. Tejas
Aggarwal, learned counsel.
Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 to 5 : Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal,
learned counsel.
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:(per Hon'ble The Chief Justice Sri Vipin Sanghi)
Delay Condonation Application (IA No.5639 of 2019)
Learned counsel for the respondents fairly does not
oppose the delay in preferring the present special appeal.
2. For the reasons stated in the delay condonation
application, the delay condonation application is allowed, and
the delay of 86 days in preferring the present special appeal
is, hereby, condoned.
SPECIAL APPEAL No.449 of 2019
3. Urgency Application (IA No.5640 of 2021) is
allowed. The matter is taken up on board.
4. The present special appeal is directed against the
order dated 19.12.2018, passed by the learned Single Judge,
dismissing the MCC No.270 of 2018 as well as the Delay
Condonation Application (CLMA No.2799 of 2018) in Writ
Petition (S/B) No.83 of 2003.
5. The husband of the appellant-writ petitioner died-
in-harness on 04.06.2002. The petitioner preferred the writ
petition on 18.02.2003 to seek compassionate appointment
under the Dying-in-Harness Rules. She also sought payment
of retiral dues, including pension and G.P.F. etc. to her. The
writ petition remained pending, and since none appeared
before the learned Single Judge when the matter was taken
up, the same was dismissed for want of prosecution on
27.09.2012.
6. The petitioner moved an application for restoration
of the writ petition after the delay of nearly four years and
ten months. That application was also dismissed for want of
prosecution on 06.12.2017, sine none appeared for the
parties on that day, as well as the previous day, i.e. on
24.11.2017.
7. The writ petitioner then moved the second
restoration application alongwith the application seeking
condonation of delay, which was heard by the learned Single
Judge, and dismissed on 19.12.2018 by the impugned order.
8. The submission of Mr. Khan, learned Senior
Counsel for the appellant, is that the learned Single Judge
should have only examined the merits of the second
restoration application, which has not been done while
passing the impugned order.
9. We have noticed the primary relief sought in the
writ petition. Compassionate appointment cannot be sought
as a matter of right and it is not a regular source of
recruitment. Compassionate appointment is granted to
alleviate the immediate financial distress of the grieving
family of the government servant, who dies in harness. With
passage of time, the said financial distress cannot be said to
persist.
10. The fact that the petitioner did not take steps after
dismissal of the writ petition on 27.09.2012, for over four
years and ten months, itself shows that the urgency in the
matter was no longer surviving, with passage of time. The
petitioner was also not vigilant in pursuing her remedy and
the first restoration application was too dismissed on
06.12.2017.
11. In the aforesaid light, in our view, the learned
Single Judge was justified in rejecting the petitioner's second
application for restoration that she moved.
12. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the
impugned order.
13. So far as the claim of the petitioner for release of
pensionary and other retiral benefits is concerned, we direct
the respondent-authorities to examine the same and release
the amount, if any, to the petitioner on that account, within
six weeks.
14. The special appeal is disposed of in the aforesaid
terms.
15. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of.
(VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.)
(RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.)
Dated: 12th June, 2023
NISHANT
