(1.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that neither the petitioner has been given compassionate appointment by the respondents nor the respondents have paid her the family pension and, therefore, the present writ petition has been preferred.
(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the father of the petitioner has expired on 5th May, 1986 and at the relevant date, the age of the petitioner was six years and, therefore, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment, only upon attaining the age of majority, but, the respondents are not appointing the petitioner on compassionate ground. The petitioner's mother has expired in the year, 2003 and, thereafter, the respondents have stopped the payment of family pension, as stated in paragraph No. 11 of the writ petition and, therefore, let a suitable direction be given to the respondents for compassionate appointment as well as for payment of family pension to the petitioner.
(3.) I have heard learned Counsel for the respondents, who has submitted that the father of the petitioner has expired on 5th May, 1986. More than a period of two decade having lapsed, the purpose of compassionate appointment is already over, as the petitioner has survived for approximately twenty three years after the death of her father. Learned Counsel for the respondents has relied upon the decisions, rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of State of U.P. v. Paras Nath, 1998 2 SCC 412, Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar and Anr., 2000 7 SCC 192, Santosh Kumar Dubey v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., 2009 6 SCC 481 and M/s Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Anil Badyakar and Ors., 2009 AIR(SC) 2534, and submitted that after a long lapse of time from the date of death of the employee, the surviving legal heir is not entitled for compassionate appointment. There cannot be a reservation of a seat for a minor, who has attained the age of majority after several years, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar and Anr., 2000 7 SCC 192, at paragraph No. 3, and, therefore, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed. Learned Counsel for the respondents further submitted that so far as pension is concerned, it is payable to a retired employee and after the death of the employee, family pension will be paid to the widow. In the facts of the present case, mother of the petitioner has also expired in the year, 2003 and at that time, the petitioner was more than 23 years of age and, therefore, this petitioner is not entitled for any pension amount and hence, this writ petition deserves to be dismissed.