Rakesh Tiwari - (1.) -Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) THE counsel for the petitioner has not been able to answer the question putforth by the Court that what was the last pay drawn by the deceased employee at the time of his death and retiral benefits that had been given to the dependent of the deceased employee or the property to show whether the family is in indigent circumstances or not. Admittedly, the mother of the petitioner moved an application on 26.8.1994 before respondent No. 5 for appointment on compassionate ground of her son Deepak. She also died on 15.7.2003. The eldest son Deepak Maurya died in a motor accident on 11.12.2002. On their death the petitioner may apply for appointment on compassionate ground but he has not applied for compassionate appointment in 1994 when his father died in harness. From the record it is apparent that the petitioner has moved an application for appointment on compassionate ground on 10.8.2004, which is highly belated. Appointment on compassionate ground is not a legal right of the dependent of the deceased employee.
(3.) THE counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court towards letters dated 18.10.2004 and 18.11.2004 appended Annexures-7 and 8 to the writ petition which are as under : ��ʢ?�-?�?0?��0/ ?0/? ��0 ��0�0-"U�0o�0/�y/'/x{yy � 0 v}.v�.�y ...[VERNACULAR TEXT OMMITED]... The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the authority has given assurance in the aforesaid letters that the petitioner will be appointed is incorrect. By letter dated 18.10.2004 Annexure-7 lo the writ petition the petitioner has been informed that he has not submitted the required documents regarding claim of his brother Deepak Maurya and sister Km. Sita for an enquiry. Simultaneously again the petitioner has been informed by letter dated 18.11.2004 Annexure-8 to the writ petition regarding completion of the formalities etc.;