Monika Shukla vs State of M.P. and Others

Sheel Nagu, J.—The petitioner in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks the following relief:--

"Respondents may kindly be directed to decide the representation Annexure P/6 of petitioner and if the petitioner completing their eligibility criteria, the appointment be granted to the petitioner."

The grievance of the petitioner is against inaction of the respondents in deciding her claim for compassionate appointment reiterated by representation Annexure P/5.

Factual matrix lying at the core of the petition is that the petitioner''s father Late Ramprakash Shukla died in harness on 16-4-1976 while holding the post of Platoon Commandant under the respondents. Since the daughter/petitioner was born in the year 1974-75, she could not make any application seeking compassionate appointment, when her father passed away. The appointment was ultimately made on attaining the age of majority sometime in 1994-95 vide Annexure P/2. It appears that some correspondence took place between the functionaries of respondent/organization where the late father of the petitioner worked, but the same did not reach their logical end. The petitioner contends that he kept representing and the last representation made for claiming compassionate appointment is marked as Annexure P/5, which is undated.

Thus, the principal grievance of the petitioner is indecision of the respondents in considering and deciding her claim for compassionate appointment raised initially sometime in the year 1994-95 when the petitioner attained the age of majority followed by repeated representations.

It is settled principle of law that compassionate appointment is an exception to the statutorily provided normal mode of recruitment and is meant to cater to extraordinary circumstances arising out of sudden death of the government servant leaving behind his/her dependents without any source of income. This extraordinary mode of recruitment by way of compassionate appointment is devised to ward off the destitution and penury that may visit the bereaved members of the family of the Government servant dying in harness.

On the basis of the abovesaid avowed object behind the concept of compassionate appointment, the need arises to claim and agitate for grant of compassionate appointment with utmost promptitude. If there is any delay in claiming and agitating for the relief of compassionate appointment, then by passage of time, the said claim becomes stale and then ultimately dead as it is presumed that if the dependents of the Government servant dying in harness can sustain themselves for a considerably long period of time, then the need urgency for compassionate appointment, vanishes since it can safely be presumed that the dependents have discovered an alternative sources of earning their livelihood.

Thus, it is necessary that the claim for compassionate appointment is not only sought but also agitated in all forums available under the law with utmost promptitude. The said proposition has been laid down by the Apex Court and reiterated time and again in the several cases; some of which in shape of (1) State of U.P. and Others Vs. Paras Nath, AIR 1998 SC 2612 : (1998) LabIC 3103 : (1999) 2 LLJ 454 : (1998) 2 SCC 412 : (1998) SCC(L&S) 570 : (1998) AIRSCW 2647 ; (2) Sanjay Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar and Others, AIR 2000 SC 2782 : (2000) 87 FLR 132 : (2000) 10 JT 156 : (2000) 6 SCALE 197 : (2000) 7 SCC 192 : (2000) SCC(L&S) 895 : (2000) 2 SCR 710 Supp : (2000) 2 UJ 1480 : (2000) AIRSCW 3082 : (2000) 6 Supreme 43 ; (3) State of Manipur Vs. Md. Rajaodin, AIR 2003 SC 3794 : (2003) 8 JT 57 : (2003) 6 SCALE 796 : (2003) 7 SCC 511 : (2003) SCC(L&S) 1070 : (2003) 3 SCR 107 Supp : (2004) 1 SLJ 247 : (2003) AIRSCW 4335 : (2003) 6 Supreme 256 ; (4) State of Jammu & Kashmir and Others Vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir, AIR 2006 SC 2743 : (2006) 110 FLR 883 : (2006) 6 JT 387 : (2006) 7 SCALE 136 : (2006) 5 SCC 766 : (2006) SCC(L&S) 1195 : (2006) 3 SCR 576 Supp : (2007) 1 SLJ 219 : (2006) AIRSCW 3708 : (2006) 5 Supreme 566 ; and (5) Local Administration Department and Another Vs. M. Selvanayagam @ Kumaravelu, AIR 2011 SC 1880 : (2011) 129 FLR 941 : (2011) 4 JT 30 : (2011) 3 LLJ 10 : (2011) 4 SCALE 265 : (2011) 13 SCC 42 : (2011) 4 SCR 244 : (2011) AIRSCW 2198 ; and can be profitably referred to.

In the case at hand, the cause for raising the claim for compassionate appointment arose to the petitioner in 1994-95 when she attained the age of superannuation after her father died in harness in 1976. Though it appears that the petitioner has raised her claim before the employer soon after attaining the age of majority, but she failed to agitate the same before the available judicial forums especially when her initial application did not invoke any response from the employer of her late father.

It is settled principle of law that the cause, which is stale and dead cannot be revived by repeated representations. The Apex Court has even gone to the extent of laying down that when a particular cause is stale and dead, no direction for disposing of a pending representation can be made because doing so may lead to incongruous situation where direction for deciding representation may revive a cause which in law is dead. The case of Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. M.K. Sarkar, (2010) 124 FLR 582 : (2009) 15 JT 70 : (2010) 2 LLJ 321 : (2009) 14 SCALE 425 : (2010) 2 SCC 59 : (2009) 1 SCR 249 of the Apex Court can profitably be referred to.

In view of the fact that the petitioner has failed to raise her grievance before the appropriate judicial forum at the relevant point of time and the fact that repeated representations do not give a fresh cause of action for enabling this Court to invoke its extraordinary writ jurisdiction, this Court is unable to assist the petitioner. In view of the above, no case for interference is made out in this petition, which accordingly deserves to be and is hereby dismissed in limine.