STATE Vs. MOHD HANIEF & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction to the respondents to appoint him on compassionate basis on account of death of his father on 9.6.1997.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that father of the petitioner was working as Drill Operator Grade-II in the Department of Geology and Mining. He unfortunately expired on 9.6.1997 during service. At the time of his death, the petitioner was merely 8 years of age, his date of birth being 22.12.1989. The mother of the petitioner is illiterate. Though she applied for the job on compassionate basis, but was not offered any appointment. In fact, she was asked to wait till her son grows up. The mother having no other source of income had, in fact, raised loans for feeding and educating the family. After the petitioner attained the age of 18 years, he applied for the job on compassionate basis on 9.1.2008, but the same was not considered. Under the circumstances, the writ petition had to be filed in this court. The mother of the petitioner has now grown old and it is now responsibility of the petitioner to repay the loans raised by her. Unless job is offered to the petitioner on compassionate basis, the family will not come out of crisis. Learned counsel further vehemently argued that the petitioner otherwise lives in a border area under difficult situation, hence, humanitarian approach is required to be taken. The petitioner got his Graduation degree in Arts in the year 2010; did B.Ed. in the year 2012 and got Post-Graduate degree in Political Science in 2016 and is fully eligible for any job, which may be offered to him. Claim for compassionate appointment at this stage is highly belated. It is meant for the family to take care of immediate needs after the employee dies. The writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the claim made by the petitioner that any application was made by the widow of the deceased employee immediately after his death is totally mis-conceived and is against the record. In fact, for the first time, application dated 9.1.2008 was filed, which was moved more than 10 years after the death of the father of the petitioner.