RAJ KUMAR PUNDIR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed as Sub-Inspector on 1.8.2005.

(2.) IT is the contention of the petitioner that he moved the application for the compassionate appointment in the year 2001. When the compassionate appointment has not been given, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 29068 of 2003, which has been disposed of by the order dated 8.4.2004 directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for the post of Sub- Inspector on compassionate ground. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner has been appointed on 1.8.2005.

(3.) IN support of the contention, he placed reliance on decision of this Court in Special Appeal No. 954 of 2009, Baroda Eastern Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank and another v. Smt. Vijay Laxmi Srivastva and another, decided on 14.7.2009, wherein while dealing with the case of the compassionate appointment, it has been observed that had her application be considered within a reasonable time, the scheme which came in to force on 6.12.2006 would not have come in her way. The bank on account of its inaction and delay in disposal of the claim of respondent No. 1 cannot bring about any such situation so as to deny the benefit of compassionate appointment.