Deepak Kumar Sahu vs Union of India

V.K. Bist, Actg. C.J.

Present Special Appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the judgment dated 30.05.2014 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 718 of 2014 (S/S), whereby the writ petition was dismissed on the ground of laches. The father of the petitioner-appellant died in harness on 02.07.1997. Thereafter, the petitioner''s mother moved an application for appointment on compassionate ground under Dying-in-Harness Rules, in the year 1998. The said application for compassionate appointment was rejected, vide order dated 27.7.2002 wherein it was observed that the need for immediate assistance by way of compassionate appointment to tide over the emergency and crisis was lacking, as the petitioner''s father died on 02.07.1997, i.e., 5 years ago from the date of rejection order. The application of the petitioner''s mother was rejected due to non-availability of sufficient vacancy within 5% quota.

It appears that after this rejection order, the mother of the petitioner did not challenge the same and kept silent for a considerable long period and only when the petitioner attained the age of majority in 2011, he (i.e. appellant) moved application for compassionate appointment and when nothing was done by the respondent-department, a writ petition bearing No. 718/2014 (S/S) was filed in the year 2014, wherein learned Single Judge, having considered the submissions of the petitioner''s counsel came to the conclusion that it was too late on the day to consider such application in the year 2011, in as much as, the deceased employee died in the year 1997, his spouse applied for compassionate appointment in 1998, the same was rejected in 2002 and the petitioner himself applied for the same in the year 2012.

Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgments of Hon''ble Allahabad High Court in Union of India & Others vs. Smt. Asha Mishra & another passed in writ petition No. 13102 of 2010 delivered on 07.05.2010 and in Manoj Kumar Saxena Vs. District Magistrate and Others,

In Smt. Asha Mishra''s case (supra), the application moved by the family of the deceased employee even after 12 years of breadwinner''s death was found within time. The direction was issued by the Division Bench of Allahabad High Court to consider the application for compassionate appointment even after 12 years of the death of deceased employee. After perusal of this judgment, we are of the view that the facts of the instant case are distinct from Smt. Asha Mishra''s case, in as much as, the father of the present petitioner died in 1997; petitioner''s mother applied for compassionate appointment in 1998 and once the claim of compassionate appointment of the deceased''s family was rejected, another family member of the deceased employee is not entitled to move another application for the same purpose. It was specifically held in Smt. Asha Mishra''s case (supra) that the question of delay is related to the making of the application and not the pendency of application, in as much as, in the said case, the family of the deceased employee seeking compassionate appointment had applied within a reasonable time and if the application seeking compassionate appointment is made in time, in that event, the pendency of such application will not come on the way of the family of the deceased seeking compassionate appointment.

In Manoj Kumar Saxena''s case (supra), at the time of death of his (Manoj Kumar Saxena''s) father in 1987, he was minor and when he attained the age of majority in 1993, applied for appointment on compassionate ground. The said pronouncement is not applicable to the facts of the present case, in as much as, in the instant case, the father of the petitioner died in 1997; the application moved by the petitioner''s mother was rejected in 2002; the petitioner filed writ petition in 2014 seeking compassionate appointment; and once the application of the family of the deceased employee seeking appointment on compassionate ground is rejected, another family member of the said deceased is not entitled to move another application.

In view of above, the special appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.