Sudhir Agarwal, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Ashok Khare, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri D.K. Singh, learned counsel for respondents and perused the record. The petitioner claimed compassionate appointment but having failed to obtain the same, came to this Court in Writ Petition No. 50 of 2004, in which an interim order was passed on 5.9.2005, which reads as under: "Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Notice have already been issued to the respondent Nos. 4 and 5 for which steps have already been taken and the notices have been dispatched on 16.1.2004. A perusal of Annexure -8 to the writ petition which is an order issued by the Regional Higher Education Officer dated 16.12.1993 leaves no room for doubt that the appointment of respondent No. 5 was subject to the condition that the appointment shall be offered to the petitioner on his attaining the age of majority. Let the respondent No. 3 and 4 show -cause as to why action be not taken against them for not implementing the order dated 16.12.1993, Annexure -8 to the writ petition. The aforesaid response shall be filed by the respondents by the next date fixed immediately upon the expiry of 3 weeks. List on 20.10.2005. A certified copy of this order shall be produced by the petitioner before the respondent Nos. 3 and 4 within a week."
(2.) PURSUANT to the aforesaid interim order dated 5.9.2005, respondents granted compassionate appointment to the petitioner vide order dated 28.4.2006. Subsequently, the writ petition was dismissed on 7.5.2007 holding that petitioner was not entitled for compassionate appointment after 15 years from the date of death of his father. The order passed by this Court dismissing writ petition on merits reads as under: "Petitioner is claiming compassionate appointment in lieu of death of his father which took place on 22.6.1990. Petitioner's claim has been rejected vide order dated 30.9.2003 on the ground that claim for compassionate appointment of the petitioner after 12 years of the death of his father cannot be entertained. The purpose of providing compassionate appointment is to save the family from the crisis in the event of death of bread earner. 12 years period is big period and after such a long duration the purpose of providing compassionate appointment stood exhausted. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of J. & K. v. Sajjad Ahmed Mir,, 2006 AIR SCW 3706, has taken the view that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as matter of right, at the cost of others, and when matter was taken up, fifteen years period had already passed from the date of death, and said fact was relevant and material fact that family survived, in spite of death of employee. In view of the law laid down by Apex Court in the aforesaid case, claim of petitioner has rightly been rejected. Consequently writ petition is dismissed." There against, petitioner initially filed recall application No. 125841 of 2007, which was dismissed on 18.5.2007 with following order: "This Court has already passed final order on 7.5.2007. There is no justification to recall the order dated 7.5.2007 as by no stretch of imagination compassionate appointment could have been provided to the petitioner after sixteen years of death. The reasons which are made in the order dated 7.5.2007 are valid reason. Consequently present recall/Restoration application is rejected."
(3.) THEN the petitioner facing termination, preferred special appeal No. 753 of 2007 wherein an interim order was passed on 1.6.2007 as under: "Admit. Issue notice. Learned Standing Counsel representing the respondents 1 to 3 prays for and granted one month to file counter -affidavit. The appellant shall have three weeks thereafter to file rejoinder -affidavit. Appellant shall take steps to serve respondents 4 and 5 by registered post. Step may be taken within a week. Office shall send notice returnable at an early date. List on the date fixed by office in the notice. Until further orders of this Court effect and operation of the orders dated 7.5.2007 and 18.5.2007 passed by learned single judge in writ petition No. 50 of 2004 and the recall application No. 125841 of 2007 shall remain stayed. It is further provided that the appellant shall be continued in service and paid his salary pursuant to the appointment letter dated 28.4.2006.";