ALOK SINGH, J. - (1.) ORDER dated 12.09.2002 (Annexure - 2 to the writ petition) is under challenge in the present writ petition, whereby request to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner was declined on the ground that application seeking compassionate appointment was moved after period of limitation i.e. one year from the date of death of the employee.
(2.) Brief facts of the present case, inter alia, are that father of the petitioner, Shankar Manjhi was working as 'Tremmer' in the Hendegir Colliery, who has died in harness on 28.05.1999. Petitioner, being son and dependent of the employee - Shankar Manjhi, has applied for compassionate appointment on 25.08.2000. Undisputedly, as per the circular dated 01.01.2002, time to apply for compassionate appointment was extended to one year with effect from February, 2000.
(3.) DIVISION Bench of this Court, in the case of Sushil Kumar Vengra Vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in, 2005 (1) J.C.R. 282, while placing reliance on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar, reported in : (1994) 2 SCC 718, Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana, reported in : (1994) 4 SCC 138, State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Jafli Devi, reported in : (1997) 5 SCC 301, has held as under: When compassionate appointment to a dependent of a public sector undertaking or an entity which is a State within the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution of India is governed by a scheme or rule or circular issued in that behalf by that entity, appointments could be made by that entity only in terms of the Scheme, Rules or Circular and a Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not have jurisdiction to direct the Government or the authority concerned to go against its own scheme. The adage that hard facts make bad law should not be forgotten by Courts while dealing with such cases. Courts should not also be instrumental in ushering in arbitrariness in such matters when an authority has strictly followed what it has itself set out as part of the scheme. Unless the Court is in a position to strike down the very scheme, the Court cannot direct a departure from that scheme.;