PAWAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has filed this appeal being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 19.07.2019 dismissing the petition filed by him for claiming compassionate appointment w.e.f. 28.08.2006.

(2.) Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the petitioner's father died in harness while serving the respondents, consequent to which the petitioner (appellant herein) applied for appointment on compassionate ground. The authorities asked the petitioner to give option for opting class-IV post or accept Rs. 2.50 lacs in lump sum in lieu thereof. The said option was offered to the petitioner in the year 2006 itself. According to the petitioner he gave an option claiming compassionate appointment against Class-IV post in the year 2009 but no further action was taken by the authorities compelling him to file a writ petition before this Court which was registered as Civil Writ Petition No. 17718 of 2011. It is submitted that this Court vide order dated 16.08.2012 allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to consider and appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground against Class-IV post. It is submitted that though a direction was issued by this Court to the authorities on 16.08.2012, the authorities did not take any steps towards compliance of the order for a long period forcing the petitioner to file a Contempt Petition which is registered as COCP No. 1236 of 2013. It is stated that on receiving the notice of the contempt proceedings, the respondents appointed the petitioner against Class-IV post on 03.02.2014, pursuant to which the contempt petition was disposed of.

(3.) It is stated that the present proceedings were taken up by the petitioner for issuance of a direction to the respondents to treat the petitioner as appointed on compassionate ground w.e.f. 2006 as the persons who were similarly placed with the petitioner and had applied for compassionate appointment were granted the same w.e.f. 2007. It is submitted that the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner by holding that the petition suffers from delay and latches and that the claim for parity and similar treatment with one Naresh Kumar is not tenable being based a on different footings. It is submitted that the court below has failed to appreciate the facts of the case in its proper prospective and has wrongly rejected the petition. Hence this appeal.