BIRENDRA RAM Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been preferred for getting compassionate appointment, because of the death of the father of the present petitioner on 8th May, 1995.

(2.) It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the father of the present petitioner was working with the respondents and has expired on 8th May, 1995. Thereafter, an application was preferred by the elder brother of the petitioner on 28th February, 1996, but, he was not given any employment. The elder brother of the petitioner died on 31st May, 1998 and, thereafter, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 15th January, 2001, but, the petitioner is not given compassionate appointment and, therefore, the present writ petition has been preferred.

(3.) I have heard learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State, who has submitted that very purpose of the appointment on compassionate ground has been frustrated by passage of more than one and half decade. Father of the petitioner has expired on 8th May, 1995 and in the year, 2008 this writ petition has been preferred. Learned Counsel for the respondents has also submitted that the purpose of compassionate appointment is to give a financial assistance to the legal heirs of the deceased, but, in the present facts, when fifteen years' period has lapsed, the petitioner has not legal right to be appointed on compassionate ground. She has relied upon the decisions, rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and Ors. as reported in,1994 4 SCO 138 as well as in the case of State of J&K and Ors. v. Sajad Ahmed Mir as reported in, 2006 5 SCC 766, and submitted on the basis of the aforesaid two decisions that if several years have lapsed after the death of an employee, the legal heirs are not entitled for compassionate appointment. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents that the father of the petitioner expired on 8th May, 1995. Petitioner's elder brother applied on 28th February, 1996, who died on 31st May, 1998 and after several months, the petitioner applied on 15th January, 2001 and the present writ petition has been filed in the year, 2008. Thus, there is a negligent approach on the part of the petitioner and, therefore, because of the delay and laches also, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed.