- (1.) The petitioner is a hapless orphan who has approached this Court for issuance of appropriate directions to the respondents to employ him on a suitable post in accordance with Exgratia Employment Scheme or the Rules.
(2.) The writ petition came up for motion hearing on 16.9.2004 when a Division Bench of this Court issued notice for 14.12.2004, then learned State counsel had asked for time to file the written statement. The written statement was required to be filed within four weeks and the hearing was deferred to 7.4.2005. The learned State counsel again asked for time to file reply and the hearing was deferred to 25.8.2005 when again request for filing reply was made. The case was adjourned to 20.12.2005 and again a request was made for more time to file reply. Then the hearing was deferred to 28.3.2006. On 28.3.2006, the Division Bench thought it appropriate to pass the following order: This is a writ petition filed by an orphan, claiming appointment on compassionate grounds, wherefor a special provision has been prescribed in statutory rules to keep alive the claim of such an orphan till he acquires the eligibility of appointment and/or attains the age of entry into service. Learned Counsel for the respondents seeks yet another adjournment so as to enable him to file written statement. A perusal of the order sheets reveals that the respondents entered appearance as far back as on December 14, 2004 and sought time to file written statement. Despite the passage of more than one year, written statement is still not forthcoming. However, in the interest of justice, one last adjournment is granted to the learned Counsel for the respondents so as to enable him to file written statement. Written statement e filed within four weeks from today, with an advance copy to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, subject to payment of Rs. 5,000/- as costs. List again on July 18, 2006.
(3.) However, no reply was filed and again request was made for more time to file reply. The request was accepted by the Division Bench subject to payment of Rs. 10,000/- as costs. We have taken up the matter in the morning session when the learned State counsel requested for taking the reply on record without making payment of costs for which the learned Counsel for the petitioner insisted. The matter was passed over and taken up again in the morning session, however, cost was not yet paid and the matter was kept for post lunch session.;