RANCHI, India, Dec. 10 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on Nov. 10:
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing the order as contained in Letter No.1040 dated 11.01.2017 passed by the 4th respondent; whereby the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground of delay and laches.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his father namely-Raghunandan Kumhar, was an employee with the respondent-BCCL and was employed as Badli Tyndal and he died while in service on 04.01.2002.
The specific case of the petitioner is that, immediately after the death of his father he filed an application for compassionate appointment on 20.03.2002 i.e., within a period of two months. However, when the appointment was not given, he approached the concerned respondent and filed a representation in the year 2015 and pursuant to that, the impugned order, Annexure-6 was issued; whereby the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that the case is more than 14 years old, so there does not seem any convincing ground to take up the matter and accordingly, the impugned order was passed.
4. Learned counsel further submits that since the petitioner applied well within time and it is due to the action of the respondent authorities, there was delay and not due to the act of the petitioner.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents, in reply, submits that the respondents have considered the application/representation of 2015, as the application of 2002 is not on record and admittedly, the erstwhile employee died on 04.01.2002.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents available on record, even assuming that the petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment well within two months from the date of death of the erstwhile employee who died on 04.01.2002, then also, we are in 2025 and further, as submitted by the petitioner himself, in the year 2015 he filed a representation before the respondent i.e., after about 13 years from the dater of death of the erstwhile employee.
One more interesting part in this case is that the impugned order is dated 11.01.2017; whereby the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected, however, this writ application has been filed on 31.08.2022 i.e., more than five years.
This itself goes to show that the laches is more on the part of the petitioner; rather on the part of respondent even admitting the claim of the petitioner that application for compassionate appointment was made on 20.03.2002.
7. Even otherwise, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman and Managing Director and Others vs. Parden Oraon reported in 2021 SCC OnLine SC 299; after considering each and every aspect of the matter has observed that "As the object of compassionate appointment is for providing immediate succour to the family of a deceased employee, the Respondent's son is not entitled for compassionate appointment after the passage of a long period of time since his father has gone missing."
8. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the instant writ application stands dismissed. Pending I.A., if any, also stands closed.
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
