- (1.) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant, Balkesh Laguri , against the order dated 10.6.2008 passed in W.P.(S) No.3587/2007, by which the learned Single Judge had been pleased to dismiss the writ petition, holding therein that the petitioner -appellant herein could not have been allowed to claim appointment on compassionate ground in place of his deceased father.
(2.) THE learned Single Judge had rejected the petition on two grounds. First of all, the learned Single Judge held that the petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground on 22.1.2001 and even though the appointment was not granted to him, he waited for a period of approximately 7 years and filed the writ petition for the first time on 3.7.2007. Thus, the learned Single Judge was pleased to hold that if the dependent of the deceased like the petitioner survived for 9 years without a job on compassionate ground, then in view of the ratio of the case reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138 (Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and Ors.), he could not claim appointment after the crisis in his family was over. Thus, on the ground of delay in filing the writ petition, by which the order denying appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground was assailed as also the fact that the petitioner/appellant survived without a job after the death of his father for a long number of years, it was held that he was not entitled to any job on compassionate ground in place of his deceased father. The petitioner -appellant, therefore, has preferred this appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge. The counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant had filed an application seeking appointment on compassionate ground within a reasonable time of the death of his father as he had applied for appointment on compassionate ground on 22.1.2001 after the death of his father on 9.2.1999. Thereafter, the authorities did not dispose of his representation for a long number of years and therefore, the appellant was compelled to file the writ petition in the year 2007. In the process, the counsel for the appellant has sought to contend that the delay in not allowing the representation of the petitioner -appellant has to be attributed to the authorities and not to the petitioner so as to deny him the appointment on the ground of delay.
(3.) IN so far as survival of the petitioner -appellant for a long number of years after the death of his father is concerned, it was explained and submitted that the appellant somehow managed to survive and look after his family under grave financial constraints and mere survival cannot be inferred as a situation where the circumstance of the family can be treated to be financially sound.;