RAKSHA DUBEY Vs. DIRECTOR, SERICULTURE AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the present writ petition is to order (Annexure-P/1) dtd. 15/11/2017 whereby the claim for compassionate appointment of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground of delay.

(2.) The fact of the case is that father of the petitioner was working as an Operative Clerk "Pravakt". He died in harness on 9/10/2002. At the time of the death of deceased employee, the petitioner was hardly 2-3 years of age and she was the sole child of the deceased employee. The petitioner's mother was an illiterate rustic villager unaware of her rights. On attaining the age of majority, the petitioner approached the department for considering her claim for compassionate appointment which vide the impugned order stands rejected leading to the present writ petition.

(3.) Perusal of the impugned order reveals that the stand taken by the authority is that of delay of a period about 15 years. However, it would be relevant at this juncture to judgment of Division Bench of this Court rendered in W.A. No. 537 of 2015 (Pushpendra Nath Sonesare v. State of Chhattisgarh and Another) decided on 10/9/2018 where the facts of the said appeal were somewhat similar if not identical to the facts of the present case. The only difference which appears to be the intervening period in the said case, the delay was about 5 V years and the present case it is about 15 years. Otherwise, the contention and the stand raised in either of the cases appears to the same. In the said case, the Division Bench of this Court has held as under:-