Smt. Chota Bhagiya Bhuini vs Bharat Cocking Coal Ltd. and Others

Tapen Sen, J.—Heard Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.K. Mehta assisted by Mr. Rupesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents.

The petitioner in the instant case prays for compassionate appointment on the ground that her husband died on 30.10.1990. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the rejection of that application was communicated only by letter dated 13.8.2001.

It is well know that compassionate appointment cannot be granted after a long lapse of reasonable period and the very purpose of compassionate appointment, as an exception to the general rule of open recruitment, is intended to meet the immediate financial problem being suffered by the members of the family of the deceased employee. The very object of appointment of dependent of deceased employee who died in harness is to relieve immediate hardship and distress caused to the family by sudden demise of the earning member of the family and such consideration cannot be kept binding for years.

Reference of the aforesaid proposition may be had from the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in the case of, Haryana State Electricity Board Vs. Naresh Tanwar and Another, .

For the foregoing reasons therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant any relief to the petitioner at this stage.

Following again the same judgment referred to above, it is observed that this Court of dismissal of the writ application will however not preclude the petitioner to make fresh representation for consideration of her case for appointment either as a temporary or permanent employee by giving full details of the family circumstances and her economic conditions. If such a representation is filed, the authorities will consider the case with such sympathy as the petitioner may deserve in the facts and circumstances of the case. The aforesaid observation is made in paragraph 11 of the aforementioned judgment. Let it be recorded that this Court has not expressed any opinion regarding merits of the claim of the petitioner and leaves the matter entirely to the respondents to pass order in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition stands dismissed. There shall however be no order as to costs.