BIMLA DEVI Vs. DELHI VIDYUT BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition the prayer is for the employment of the Petitioner on compassionate grounds, consequent upon the death of her husband on 17.12.1991, after he had put in sixteen years of service. This request was not acceded to by the Respondent, thus necessitating the filing of the present writ petition. Similar questions had also arisen in C.w.P. 7694/99 and C.w.P. 422 of 2000 which had been disposed off by a common judgment dated 19.7.2001. In order to avoid prolixity and repetition, that judgment is appended hereto, so that the reasoning and precedents on this issue can be appreciated. On a reading thereof it will be evident'that the present case is almost on all fours with that of Shri Vir Mohammad.

(2.) Mr. Mukul Gupta, learned counsel for the Petitioner has stressed upon the fact that the Respondent had not adhered to their Policy Regarding Compassionate Appointment, and in. particular the following Clause:

(3.) It appears that the period of two months was increased to six months in terms of the Respondent's letter dated 7.9.1989. Even this period shows the urgency and immediacy attached to compassionate appointment. Assuming that the Respondents have been remiss in advising the Petitioner to seek compassionate appointment, the fact that the family has survived for almost one decade indicates that the Petitioner is not in such dire straits and penury as would justify deviating from the rights guaranteed to ail citizens by Article 16 of the Constitution. In L.P-A. 108/97 entitled Shri Babloo v. Delhi the Learned Division Bench did not have the advantage of the pronouncements of the Apex Court being referred to by Learned Counsel for the parties. The Petition is without merit. There is no indefeasible right to demand compassionate appointment; certainly delay in seeking it extinguishes the compassionate component of the consideration. Dismissed.