CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Bachee Singh vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

Uttarakhand High Court · Decided on 16 August 2011 · Citation: (2011) 08 UK CK 0103

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sudhanshu Dhulia, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 195 of 2002
Download PDFAsk AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 360 words

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.—Heard Mr. K.N. Joshi, Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. P.S. Bisht, Standing Counsel present for the Union of India.

2.

The father of the Petitioner who was an employee of the Indian Veterinary Research Institute, Mukteshwar, Almora died in harness in the year 1986. Consequently the mother of the Petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground. Though she being overage her matter was considered at high level but her appointment could not be made. Consequently thereafter the son of the deceased i.e. the present Petitioner also applied for appointment on compassionate ground but he was also denied appointment vide order dated 6.11.1993 (annexure No. 3 to the counter affidavit). The veracity of this letter dated 6.11.1993 has not been denied by the Petitioner.

3.

Therefore, the admitted case is that the father of the Petitioner died in harness in the year 1986. Subsequently the Petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground on 29.11.1990 which was denied on 6.11.1993. The Petitioner has now filed a writ petition in the year 2002 for claiming appointment on compassionate ground.

4.

It is too late in the day for considering such appointment, as there is nothing on record to show as to why the Petitioner did not agitate the matter in the year 1993 itself. The basic purpose for making an appointment on compassionate ground is that the family who has lost its only breadwinner needs support so that the family may be able to overcome the immediate hardship. In the present case, the death of the breadwinner had taken place in the year 1986. The appointment on compassionate ground was sought by the Petitioner in the year 1990 and appointment was denied to the Petitioner on 6.11.1993, yet he did not challenge the same immediately and has filed the present writ petition on 22.3.2002 i.e. after a period of more than 8 years. Therefore the sequence of the events also shows that there is apparently No. hardship in the family.

5.

In view of the aforesaid, apart from the laches writ petition is also liable to be dismissed on merit and is hereby dismissed.

6.

No order as to costs.