- (1.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in search of the compassionate appointment because of death of her father on 22nd June, 1990, who was employee of the respondent-State. The petitioner was minor as on date of death of father of the petitioner. The date of birth of the present petitioner is 2nd May, 1978 and, therefore, after attaining the age of majority, the petitioner ought to have been appointed by the respondent-State as an employee of the State Government.
(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that more than i.e. approximately two decades time have already been lapsed after the death of the father of the present petitioner. The very purpose of giving compassionate appointment is already frustrated. Compassionate appointment is to give support to the family of the deceased. By passage of twenty long years, after death of the father of the present petitioner, this purpose will not be achieved. Moreover, there cannot be reservation for the petitioner in the employment of the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied upon a decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as reported in (2000) 7 SCC 192 and submitted that in view of the aforesaid decision also, there is no legal duty vested in the respondents to give compassionate appointment to the present petitioner nor there is any legal vested right in the petitioner to get compassionate appointment and, hence, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
(3.) Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition mainly for the following facts and reasons:- (i) The father of the present petitioner was working with the respondents and he expired on 22nd June, 1990. (ii) Because of death of father of the present petitioner, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 23rd December, 1994 and it is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that at that time, the petitioner was minor and, therefore, the petitioner ought to have been appointed after attaining the age of majority, by the respondents. This contention is not accepted by this Court mainly for the reason that by now, approximately twenty long years have been lapsed after the death of the father of the present petitioner. The purpose of grant of the compassionate appointment is to give immediate support to the family of the deceased. After lapse of twenty long years, there is no question of granting any compassionate appointment, whatsoever arises in the facts of the present case. The family of the deceased is already getting support from other sources of the income. (iii) It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., as reported in (2000) 7 SCC 192, paragraphs 2 and 3 thereof read as under:- "2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has placed strong reliance on the decision of a learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court in Chandra Bhushan v. State of Bihar. Learned Senior Counsel points out that it was held in that case that an applicant's right cannot be defeated on the ground of delay caused by authorities which was beyond the control of the applicant. Learned Senior Counsel further points out that instead of following the above judgment, the same learned Judge has now held on 21-4-1997 that the application is time-barred. Learned counsel has placed before us a judgment of this Court in Director of Education (Secondary) v. Pushpendra Kumar. He submits that, in this case, a direction was given to create supernumerary posts. 3. We are unable to agree with the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. This Court has held in a number of cases that compassionate appointment is intended to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden crisis resulting due to death of the breadearner who has left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In fact such a view has been expressed in the very decision cited by the petitioner in Director of Education v. Pushpendra Kumar. It is also significant to notice that on the date when the first application was made by the petitioner on 2-6-1998, the petitioner was a minor and was not eligible for appointment. This is conceded by the petitioner. There cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time as the petitioner becomes a major after a number of years, unless there are some specific provisions. The very basis of compassionate appointment is to see that the family gets immediate relief." (emphasis supplied) In view of the aforesaid decision also, there cannot be reservation for any candidate, till he attains the age of majority, for the compassionate appointment, to be given by the State Government. (iv) Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out any rule, regulation or Government resolution, which compels the Government to wait, till the petitioner attains the age of majority, for granting compassionate appointment. Even otherwise also, the age of the present petitioner, as on date of death of her father, was 16 years 7 months and 21 days and now the petitioner has already crossed 31 or 32 years of age. Thus, even after the age of majority, much time has been lapsed.;