CHINTA MANI Vs. JKSRTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE instant appeal under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent is directed against judgment and order dated 01.02.2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court, non-suiting the appellant-writ petitioner on the ground that there is unexplained delay of 9 years in approaching the High Court by way of filing writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition has been dismissed and feeling aggrieved the appellant-writ petition has filed the instant appeal.

(2.) THE appellant-writ petitioner alongwith many other Daily Wagers were regularized as Helpers on 30.07.1986. It is, however, significant to notice that Pawan Kumar-respondent no. 4 was adjusted as Junior Assistant vide order dated 23.04.1986 apparently prior to passing of order of regularization on 30.07.1986. Shri Harjeet Singh-respondent no. 2 approached this Court that he may also be adjusted as Junior Assistant by treating him at par with Shri Pawan Kumar. In accordance with the direction issued by this Court, Shri Harjeet Singh was also adjusted as Junior Assistant with effect from 23.04.1986. It is pertinent to mention that Shri Harjeet Singh had filed a writ petition (SWP) no. 1063/1993 and direction was issued by this Court to consider his claim on 15.04.1994. The appellant-writ petitioner also filed SWP no. 1357/2006 relatable to the instant appeal with a prayer for quashing order dated 23.04.1986 passed in favour of respondent no. 4 adjusting him on the post of Junior Assistant as also order dated 05.04.1997 adjusting respondent no. 3 on the post of Junior Assistant. A further prayer was also made for issuance of direction to the official respondents to consider and promote the appellant-writ petitioner to the post of Junior Assistant by treating him at par with respondents 3 and 4 with all consequential benefits.

(3.) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their able assistance. It has come on record that the appellant-writ petitioner was appointed on compassionate basis as Daily Wager on 18.06.1985. Shri Pawan Kumar-respondent no. 4 was adjusted as Junior Assistant. They were all regularized as Helpers or any other post vide order dated 30.07.1986. The appellant-writ petitioner could not have asked for appointment on a particular post because it was a compassionate appointment. The post of Helper was offered to him and he was also regularized on that post on 30.07.1986. The adjustment of respondent no. 4 on the post of Junior Assistant by respondents 1 and 2 would not arm the appellant-writ petitioner with any right to claim equality. The basic purpose of offering compassionate appointment is that a family, which has lost its bread earner, may not be driven to penury and is able to make both ends meet. It has never been accepted as another source of recruitment. It is merely an exception carved out by the policies of the State and the Courts have upheld the same as it involves a humanistic approach. Any person, who has been given appointment on compassionate ground, is not entitled to claim a particular post. However, if he is keen for appointment on a particular post then he would be at liberty to apply for all jobs available under the sky. However, he cannot be permitted to join first on the basis of compassion and then claim a particular post. There is no dearth of judgments rendered by Hon 'ble the Supreme Court on the aforesaid issue. In that regard reliance may be placed on the observations made by Hon 'ble the Supreme Court in the cases of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana 1994 (2) SLR 677 and Susheela B. Bhakta & anr. v. Karnatka State Road Transport Corporation 1994 (4) SCC 138.