- (1.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the present petition has been preferred for getting appointment on compassionate ground, because of the death of the father of the petitioner, which has taken place on 4th July, 1996, which was working with respondents. The petitioner, thereafter, applied for getting compassionate appointment and as he has not been appointed, the present petition has been preferred. Learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that a detailed counter-affidavit has been filed and it has been stated in paragraph No. 12 of the said counter-affidavit that the petitioner was already appointed vide appointment letter dated 24th January, 1998, but, he has never approached the respondents for resuming the duties. Repeated requests were also made by the respondents to the petitioner, but, he has never approached the respondents. These facts have been stated in paragraph Nos. 12 and 14 of the counter-affidavit and thereafter, there is contemporary record, which is internal correspondence, that though the petitioner was given appointment, he has never approached the respondent authorities. This is internal correspondences of the relevant years, which are also annexed as Annexure to the counter-affidavit, over and above the appointment letter. Thus, by now several years have elapsed from the date of death of the father of the petitioner and, therefore, the very purpose of compassionate appointment has been frustrated. It is further submitted by the Learned Counsel for the respondent authorities that the age of the petitioner as on 1st April, 1987 was 16 years and, therefore, by now i.e. in the year, 2010, the petitioner is of 40 years of age and, thus, he has also crossed the age limit, fixed for compassionate appointment, which is 35 years and, therefore also, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.
(2.) Having heard Learned Counsel 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) Father of the petitioner, who was working with the respondents, has expired on 4h July, 1996. Thereafter, the petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground on 5th December. 1996/10th January, 1997. (ii) It further appears from the facts of the case that the petitioner was already appointed on compassionate basis by the respondents and the appointment letter is annexed as Annexure C to the counter-affidavit, which is dated 24th January, 1998. A detailed counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents, paragraph Nos. 12 and 14 whereof read as under: 12. That it is stated that the petitioner's case of compassionate appointment was considered and the appointment letter dated 24.1.1998 was issued to him. 13. That it is stated that the petitioner in pursuance to the appointment letter did not join, as is evident from the letter dated 7.7.1998 of the Deputy Chief Personnel Manager, Char-hi area addressed to the General Manager (P & IR) of the respondent No. 1 Company. Thus, in the light of the aforesaid facts, it appears that despite the repeated requests, the petitioner has not joined the services with the respondents and there is a contemporary record also, which fortifies the aforesaid contention raised by the respondents, which is a letter at Annexures D & E to the counter-affidavit. Though these are internal correspondences, but, they fortifies the stand of the respondents that the petitioner despite the offer of appointment, has not resumed the duties. (iii) It appears that the statements made by the respondents at paragraph No. 12 of the counter-affidavit has not been controverted by the petitioner, by filing any rejoinder affidavit. There is no rejoinder affidavit on record of the petitioner. (iv) Thus, it appears that the compassionate appointment, offered by the respondents at the relevant time, was not accepted by the petitioner. Moreover, by now much time has lapsed from the date of death of the father of the petitioner i.e. from the year, 1996 till the year, 2012 approximately a period of fifteen years has elapsed by now and, thus, the very purpose of compassionate appointment has been frustrated, because of this lapse of time. (v) Moreover, the age of the petitioner as on 1st April, 1987 was 16 years, even as per the submission of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner. Thus, in the year, 2012 the petitioner is approximately 40 years of age. Thus, the age limit for compassionate appointment, which is as per National Coal Wage Agreement 35 years, has also been crossed of the petitioner. (vi) It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. v. Paras Nath, 1998 2 SCC 412, at paragraph Nos. 4, 5 and 6, as under : 4. Seventeen years after the death of his father, the respondent, on 8.1.1986, made an application for being appointed to the post of a Primary School Teacher under the said Rules. His application was rejected. He, thereafter, filed a writ petition before the High Court. This writ petition was allowed by the High Court and an appeal from the decision of the single Judge of the High Court was also dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court. Hence the State has filed the present appeal. 5. The purpose of providing employment to a dependent of a Government servant dying in harness in preference to anybody else, is to mitigate the hardship caused to the family of the employee on account of his unexpected death while still in service. To alleviate the distress of the family, such appointments are permissible on compassionate grounds provided there are Rules providing for such appointment. The purpose is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased Government servant. None of these considerations can operate when the application is made after a long period of time such as seventeen years in the present case. 6. We may, in this connection, refer to only one judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India v. Bhagwan Singh. In this case, the application for appointment on similar compassionate grounds was made twenty years after the railway servant's death. this Court observed : The reason for making compassionate appointment, which is exceptional, is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a Government servant who dies in harness, when there is no other earning member in the family. (Vii) It has also been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar & Ors., 2000 7 SCC 192, at paragraph Nos. 2 and 3, 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 had 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 2-6-1988, 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. (viii) It has further been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Santosh Kumar Dubey v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., 2009 6 SCC 481, especially at paragraph Nos. 11 and 12, as under : 11. The very concept of giving a compassionate appointment is to tide over the financial difficulties that are faced by the family of the deceased due to the death of the earning member of the family. There is immediate loss of earning for which the family suffers financial hardship. The benefit is given so that the family can tide over such financial constrains. 12. The request for appointment on compassionate grounds should be reasonable and proximate to the time of the death of the bread earner of the family, inasmuch as the very purpose of giving such benefit is to make financial help available to the family to overcome sudden economic crisis occurring in the family of the deceased who has died in harness. But this, however, cannot be another source of recruitment. This also cannot be treated as a bonanza and also as a right to get an appointment in Government service." (ix) It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Anil Badyakar & Ors., 2009 AIR(SC) 2534 especially at paragraph No. 19, as under : "19. The principles indicated above would give a clear indication that the compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered after a lapse of time and after the crisis is over. In the instant case the employee died in harness in the year 1981 and after a long squabble by the dependents of the deceased, they arrived at a settlement that the son-in-law of the second daughter who is unemployed may request for appointment on compassionate grounds. The request so made was accepted by the Personnel Manager of the Company subject to the approval of the Director of the Company. The Director (P), who is the competent authority for post facto approval, keeping in view the object and purpose of providing compassionate appointment has cancelled the provisional appointment on the ground that nearly after 12 years from the date of death of the employee such an appointment could not have been offered to the so-called dependent of the deceased employee. In our considered view, the decision of the employer was in consonance with Umesh Kumar Nagpal's case and the same should not have been interfered with by the High Court. As a Cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements. I see no reason to entertain this writ petition. Thus, there being no substance, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.;