- (1.) HEARD counsel on both sides. This appeal is by the respondents in WP (S) No. 4735 of 2002. The respondent herein, the writ petitioner, sought appointment under the dying in harness scheme, His father died on 8.11.1994. He made an application some time in the year 1995. He filed the writ petition in this Court in the year 2002 complaining that no final decision has been taken on his request for appointment. On behalf of the appellants, it is not disputed that no final decision was taken on the request for appointment under the scheme made by the respondent. But what was contended was that the very object of compassionate appointment and the scheme formulated, will be defeated if such a scheme is permitted to be agitated in the year 2002, more than seven years after the death of an employee.
(2.) THE learned Single Judge took the view that the appellants cannot take advantage of their own laches in taking the decision and it cannot be allowed to argue that the respondent 'sclaim is belated. The learned Judge, therefore, directed the appellants to take a final decision on the request of the respondent, the writ petitioner, within one month from the date of his judgment. He also indicated that if the authorities were to go against some of the notings in the file, they were to give reasons. The appellants challenged this order on the ground that the learned Judge ost sight of the fact that the very object of the scheme has already become frustrated in view of the lapse of time. We are impressed with this argument. It is not a case where the respondent. the writ petitioner, made a belated approach. The respondent applied for appointment some time in the year 1995. Of course, there was some notings in the concerned file that the application was incomplete. But it is seen that the application was kept undisposed of by the appellants. In fact, some of the annexures produced by the respondent, including notings on the concerned file, indicate that the appellants were considering the case of the respondent. There appears to have been a recommendation to give him an employment and a further noting that it had to be ascertained whether his father died in harness since he did not perform his duties after 1.12.1992 and he died only on 8.11.1994. Whatever it may be, what is clear is that there was delay on the part of the appellants in passing a final order on the claim of the respondent. The appellants are not entitled to take advantage of their own default in not concluding the proceedings and in taking up thereafter a plea that the respondent 'sapproach to this Court was belated. After all, the respondent has approached this Court only with a prayer to issue a writ of mandamus directing the appellants to perform their statutory duty. There cannot be any laches in such an approach on the facts of his case. Therefore, we are satisfied that the direction of the learned Single Judge to the appellants to finalise the matter within a period of one month does not call for any interference, except possibly to fix a further date for compliance. At the same time, we do not think that the observations of the learned Judge about some of the notings and to give a reason and so on, are justified at this stage. After all the appellants are expected to act in accordance with law and this Court is not expected to interfere with the decision that they may take. Therefore, those observations in the concluding paragraph of the judgment under appeal stand deleted.
(3.) WE , therefore, dispose of this appeal by directing the appellants to take a final decision regarding, the claim of the respondent, the writ petitioner, for appointment on compassionate ground, within a period of one month from the date of receipt of or production of a copy of this judgment before them by the respondent, the writ petitioner. The appellants will consider all the relevant aspects and take a proper decision in accordance with law and in accordance with the scheme.;