ROMESH CHANDER Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ, direction or order directing the respondents to consider and appoint him against any post in the Corporation on compassionate grounds and also to settle and reimburse all pensionary benefits viz. gratuity, P.P. Fund, leave encashment and family pension etc. to him being legal heir of deceased Girdhari lal. Fa ­ther of the petitioner, Girdhari Lal was working further case is that despite legal notice, Annexure "A", when no relief has been given to him by the respondents, he is forced to file this writ petition.

(2.) RESPONDENTS were put to notice and thereafter writ petition was admitted. Objec ­tions have been filed by the respondents. They admit that Girdhari Lal was in their service but was WC Beldar and not a Welder. They have specifically stated that all dues in favour of de ­ceased Girdhari Lal were paid immediately to his widow, as such there is nothing due and pay ­able by respondents as claimed in the writ peti ­tion. Plea of the petitioner that he was assured regarding his engagement on compassionate grounds is specifically denied. Regarding fam ­ily state of the deceased, it is specifically pleaded by them that Maya Devi is the widow, whereas Kasturi Kal and Romesh Kutnar (pe ­titioner) are his sons. Former is serving in the army and family also owns moveable and im -moveable property.

(3.) PETITIONER applied for the post of LDC which claim was turned down as far back as on 26th June 1995, copy where of is placed on the file as annexure "B" with the objections. When petitioner again approached after two years vide his application dated: 10.03.1997, the same was also turned down and mother of the petitioner was informed vide communication, copy whereof is filed as Annexure "C" with the ob ­jections. In the light of aforesaid pleadings learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by not offering employment to his client, re ­spondents have caused grave injustice to his client, as such, direction needs to be issued in that behalf. On the other hand claim of the petitioner has been repudiated by Shri Rabstan, learned Additional Central Government stand ­ing Counsel. According to him claim of the petitioner stood rejected in the year 1995 itself, which fact petitioner has purposely with -held in the writ petition. This by itself is a good ground to reject this petition because he made an attempt to get relief by suppression of as well as by with -holding of a fact which has material bearing on this case. In addition to this, writ petition suffered from delay and laches, reason being that the subsequent rejection does not improve the case of petitioner. Right if any (though he stated that this position is not ad ­mitted) accrued to the petitioner in the year 1995 and he waited till 4th Feb. 2k when present writ petition was filed. Thus according to him petitioner had sustained for more than 4 & l/2years after the rejection of his earlier claim. On this ground he is not entitled to any relief.