D.N.PATEL,J. - (1.) I.A. No. 7066 of 2017. This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condoning the delay of 79 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal.
(2.) Having heard counsels for both the sides and looking to the reasons stated in this interlocutory application, especially in paragraph nos. 4 and 5 thereof, there are reasonable reasons for condonation of delay in preferring this Appeal. We therefore, condone the delay in preferring this L.P.A. No. 393 of 2017.
(3.) This Interlocutory Application is allowed and disposed of. L.P.A. No. 393 of 2017. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original respondent in W.P.(S) No. 4342 of 2014 . The writ petition was preferred by respondent no. 1 for getting compassionate appointment because of death of his brother which has taken place on 29th July, 2000. As the writ petition has been allowed by the learned Single Judge, the present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original respondent. 2. Factual Matrix: One Savitri Kamin was working with this appellant. She took voluntary retirement in the year, 1998. At the relevant time, Female Voluntary Retirement Scheme, 1998 was in existence and as per the said scheme if any female employee is taking voluntary retirement her legal heir can be appointed as Class-IV employee. By the virtue of such Scheme, despite Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, son of Savitri Kamin namely Nageshwar Kumar Mallah was given employment on 20th March, 1999. Nageshwar Kumar Mallah, son of Savitri Kamin was initially appointed as Trainee with a monthly stipend of Rs. 2500/. His appointment letter is at Annexure 1 to the memo of this L.P.A. Nageshwar Kumar Mallah was never confirmed. Before he confirmed and before he regularised into services he expired on 29th July, 2000. Now his brother, who is original respondent in L.P.A. has preferred an application for getting appointment which was rejected by this appellant vide order dated 31st February, 2014 which is at Annexure 4 to the memo of this L.P.A. As the application for compassionate appointment was rejected of the brother of Nageshwar Kumar Mallah a writ petition was preferred being W.P.(S) No. 4342 of 2014 which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 10th March, 2017 and hence, the present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original respondent Management. 3. Arguments canvassed by the counsel for the Appellant (original respondent in the writ petition): Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that there is no right vested in the original petitioner to get the compassionate appointment because his brother viz. Nageshwar Kumar Mallah was never confirmed in the employment. He was only a Trainee and was appointed on a monthly stipend of Rs. 2500/and before he confirmed into the service he expired on 29th July, 2000 and hence, his brother, who is original petitioner, cannot be appointed on compassionate ground. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant (original respondent no. 1) that for getting compassionate appointment by the original petitioner he has to be fully dependent upon his brother Nageshwar Kumar Mallah. Nageshwar Kumar Mallah was appointed as a Trainee on 20th March, 1999 (Annexure 1) with stipend of Rs. 2500/per month. His brother, who is original petitioner, cannot be dependent upon Nageshwar Kumar Mallah and the certificate given by Block Development Officer, Bermo (Bokaro) is of no use to the original petitioner because Block Development Officer cannot give such type of certificate just upon asking by the way of charity of the petitioner nor it was a concern of the Block Development Officer to peep into family affairs of somebody that who is dependent upon whom. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition preferred by the respondent (original petitioner). It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellant (original respondent no. 1) that when Savitri Kamin had taken voluntary retirement under a Female Voluntary Retirement Scheme of 1998 the only obligation on the part of the Management was to appoint her son as a Class-IV employee. This legal obligation of the appellant comes to an end, no sooner did, when Nageshwar Kumar Mallah was given appointment on 20th March, 1999. He was never a confirmed employee. He was appointed initially as a Trainee with monthly stipend of Rs. 2500/. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that there is nothing like automatic confirmation in the employment. Even if the trainee period is over, there is nothing like automatic confirmation as has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in:- (a) AIR 1966 SC 175 (b) AIR 1966 SC 1842 (c) (1974) 2 SCC 831 (d) (1996) 5 SCC 308 It is a wrong notion in the mind of the original petitioner which has been accepted by the learned Single Judge which is an error apparent on the face of the record. It is further submitted by the counsel for the appellant (original respondent no. 1) that unless the regularly appointment employee or confirmed employee expires and unless the other legal heir is fully dependent upon the deceased, the compassionate appointment cannot be given. In the facts of the present case, neither Nageshwar Kumar Mallah was regular employee of this appellant nor the respondent (original petitioner) was fully dependent upon Nageshwar Kumar Mallah hence, no error was committed by this appellant in rejecting the application/representation for getting appointment of the respondent. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and hence, the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 4342 of 2014 dated 10th March, 2016 deserves to be quashed and set aside.;