D. N. Patel, J. - (1.) Office defects are tentatively ignored and this matter is taken up for its hearing.
(2.) This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner, who had preferred W.P.(S) No. 2275 of 2010 for compassionate appointment because of the fact that his father was unnecessarily compelled to retire prematurely on 07.11.1991 on the ground of medical unfitness, but, as per this appellant, who is a son, his father was absolutely fit. Had he not been compelled to retire, in 1991, he would have continued in the job up to the age of his superannuation i.e. 31-1-1994, but, he expired in the year 1993 and therefore, this appellant was praying for compassionate appointment, but, said writ petition was dismissed by the learned single Judge vide order, dated 25.04.2016 and hence, present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner.
(3.) Having heard counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that father of this appellant, namely, Mani Ram Gope, was working as a peon. As per respondents-Government, as he was medically unfit, he was given premature retirement on 07.11.1991. It further appears from the facts of the case that legally payable retirement dues, including pension as well as gratuity, were paid to the wife of the original employee, who is mother of this appellant. Neither the original employee, namely, Mani Ram Gope nor the wife of Mani Ram Gope has ever challenged the retirement nor they have accepted the retirement benefits under protest. It further appears from the facts of the case that this appellant had previously also preferred W.P.(S) No. 953 of 2003 before this Court for the very same purpose for getting compassionate appointment, but, the same was dismissed by the learned single Judge vide order dated 19.08.2009 by a detailed speaking order. This order has never been carried in the Letters Patent Appeal by this appellant. Thus, the earlier writ petition, preferred by the very same appellant, for the very same prayer and for the very same facts and reasons, has already been decided against this appellant and the same has attained its finality. Now, again the petition has been preferred by this appellant with the very same facts of the retirement of his father on 07.11.1991on the ground that his father was though medically fit, was wrongly compelled to be retired and as his father had expired in the year 1993 and now, his mother has also expired, this appellant should be given compassionate appointment. As stated hereinabove, earlier writ petition bearing W.P.(S) No. 953 of 2003 was already dismissed vide order dated 19.08.2009. No error has been committed by the learned single Judge while dismissing the second writ petition preferred by this appellant bearing W.P.(S) No. 2275 of 2010 vide order, dated 25.04.2016. Moreover, the very purpose of the compassionate appointment has been frustrated by now. Father of the appellant had expired in the year 1993 and by now, approximately 24 years has lapsed i.e. about quarter of century. Compassionate appointment is not a right vested in this appellant. Upon query, raised by this Court, it is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that this appellant is doing business of milk.;