Sambuddha Chakrabarti, J. - (1.) Let the affidavit-of-service filed on behalf of the petitioner in Court today be kept with the record.
(2.) The predecessor in interest of the petitioners was an employee of the United Bank of India. He died in harness in the year 2000. There was an application for compassionate appointment, which was turned down by the respondent authorities by a communication, dated June 17, 2004. Subsequently, there were intermittent representations and the respondents have also rejected the same with reference to the communication made earlier. The petitioners have challenged the said order of 2004 in a writ petition filed thirteen years after the orders were passed.
(3.) The petitioners claim was for compassionate appointment. It has been a settled principles of law that such appointments must be reckoned to be outside of the regular course of appointment. The employer does not get candidate of the best merit of such cases. In spite of it, employers make provision for appointment on compassionate ground to help a family tide over the immediate financial crisis arising out of the sudden death of a sole bread earner. Thus, time is a factor in the matter of making such appointments. If by the lapse of considerable time the immediacy is lost, an applicant for compassionate appointment loses his right to ask for the same. In the case of Sajjad Ahmed Mir Vs. State of Jammu & Kashmir, 2006 AIR(SC) 2743, the Hon'ble Apex Court had reiterated the principle that when a considerable time, 10 years in that case, lapsed between the death of the employee and the consideration of the case, the compassionate appointment may not be considered. In the present case more than 17 years have elapsed from the death of the predecessor in interest of the petitioners.;