Jasbir Singh, J. - (1.) Civil Misc. No. 999 -LPA of 2014
(2.) IN view of averments made in this application, the same is allowed. Delay of 23 days in filing the appeal stands condoned. Civil Misc. No. 1000 -LPA of 2014 After hearing counsel for the applicant/appellant, this application is allowed. Delay of 30 days in re -filing the appeal stands condoned. Letters Patent Appeal No. 406 of 2014
(3.) APPELLANT 's father died in service on 26.9.2003. The appellant's age was less than 18 years on the said date. However, he filed an application to get compassionate appointment on 11.11.2003. As per service rules, he could not be taken into service as his age was less than 18 years. He attained the age of 18 years on 15.7.2004. It is on record that on 30.7.2004, some daily wagers, as per policy of the State Government, were regularized in service. On 19.7.2004, the appellant filed an application to get employment on compassionate grounds, which was processed as per rules and he was given appointment on 20.8.2004 against the post of Clerk. He accepted the offer of appointment without raising any objection and continued to work against that post till the year 2013 when he filed a writ petition viz. Civil Writ Petition No. 23678 of 2013 seeking issuance of directions to the respondents that he be given deemed date of appointment i.e. from 15.7.2004 when he attained the age of 18 years. That writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 28.10.2013. Relevant portion of the order passed by the learned Single Judge reads thus: - After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the view that the petition is totally frivolous and misconceived. The petitioner has been given employment on compassionate basis and, therefore, whatever his right in employment qua seniority etc. would be from the date when he enters service. He can not by any stretch of imagination have a grievance against those employees who were regularized within this short interregnum i.e. between the date of his attainment of majority till the date of his employment. Evidently, it can not be accepted that the respondents functioning would be halted only to await the entry of the petitioner into service.;