Deepak Roshan,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties through V.C.
(2.) The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing the order as contained in letter no.50 dated 05.02.2009 (Annexure-9), whereby the representation of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected on the ground that she is over age and further she does not possess required qualification.
(3.) Mr. Abhijeet Kr. Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this is second round of litigation. Previously, the petitioner had challenged the rejection order dated 24.04.2007, whereby the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected and subsequently this Court vide its order dated 27.08.2008 had directed the respondents to reconsider the application of the petitioner for her compassionate appointment in the light of the direction contained in government circular/notification referred to by the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner had specifically urged that in the matter of compassionate appointment the head of concerned department has the power to relax the maximum age of the applicant and further vide another notification dated 30.11.1984, the educational criteria has been waived in respect of female whose candidature is to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground. However, ignoring the specific direction given by this Court in the earlier writ application being W.P.(S) No.815 of 2008; the respondents in most mechanical manner rejected the application on same grounds. Learned counsel further submits that the ground of rejection is almost same and similar what they took earlier in rejecting the claim of the petitioner and certainly the inaction of the respondents has ultimately forced the petitioner to attain the age of superannuation. As such, in view of the latest judgment, if not damage; but some compensation may be directed to be paid to this petitioner because admittedly; even in the second round of litigation, the respondents have not dealt the government notification and in a sense they have not complied the order of this Court in true letter and spirit. Before concluding his argument, Mr. Singh referred to the order dated 04.04.2019 passed in W.P.(S) No.4758 of 2017 , wherein this Court has held at paragraph no.20 as under:- " 20 . In the instant case, as held earlier, I find that the inaction on part of the respondents in not disposing of the application for grant of compassionate appointment filed by the petitioner is unpardonable. The respondents sat over the matter and till date has not disposed of the application, rather contested the claim of the petitioner on the ground that 20 years have gone by, thus, there is no necessity to grant compassionate appointment. It is unfair on the part of the respondents to take benefit of their own wrong, which should not also be allowed. Further, if they are allowed to go scot free, these inactions will continue and will increase by few folds to deprive the family of the poor workman, who will be left at a helpless state, who cannot even confront the might of the public sector authorities. Thus, this is a fit case to impose exemplary damages. In view of the aforesaid position, I direct the respondents-the Central Coalfields Limited to pay damages of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakh) to the petitioner." Relying upon the aforesaid judgment petitioner submits that her claim for monetary compensation/damage should be considered because at no point of time the petitioner was at default. ;