- (1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner in this writ application has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to consider the petitioner's application for his appointment on compassionate grounds on the basis of his father's employment under the respondents and on the basis of the provisions as contained in Clause 9.4.0 of the N.C.W. Agreement -V/VI The facts of the petitioner's case in brief are as follows: '' The petitioner's father late Haria was an ex -employee under the respondents. He had separated from service on medical grounds on 11.2.1997. Upon such separation, a lady namely Sanicharya Devi, claiming herself to be the wife of the employee, had submitted her application for compassionate appointment. Upon being satisfied of her claim, the respondents conceded to appoint her and in fact a letter of appointment was issued to her on 15.5.1998. However, upon some objections raised by the employees' union against the grant of such appointment to the lady on the ground that she is the second wife of the ex -employee, the respondent employer proceeded to withdraw the appointment by issuing a letter dated 23.2.2000. Within less than three months from the date of receipt of withdrawal letter, the petitioner being the eldest son of the exemployee, submitted his application seeking compassionate appointment on the ground of his father's service. Such application was admittedly submitted in the office of the concerned authorities of the respondents on 8.5.2000.
(3.) SRI A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no response was conveyed to the petitioner upon his application seeking compassionate appointment. The only information the petitioner could gain was that his application was processed through the various departments including the Vigilance and Legal Section for clearance but to the knowledge of the petitioner, -no final decision on the same has been communicated to the petitioner. Learned counsel adds further that it is only through the counter affidavit of the respondents that the petitioner has come to understand that the respondents have refused to grant his prayer for compassionate appointment on the ground of delay in submitting the application. Learned counsel explains that the respondents cannot take such plea of delay firstly, because in none of the Clauses of the N.C.W.A. was there any stipulation, limiting the period within which the application for compassionate appointment should be made and furthermore, even otherwise, there was no delay in submitting the application in view of the fact that the petitioner had submitted his application within less than three months from the date of receipt of the letter from the respondents whereby they had proceeded to recall the order of appointment of the petitioner's mother. Learned counsel argues that the delay, if any, has been adequately explained and as such, there could be no such plea available to the . respondents for refusing the petitioner's prayer for appointment.;