SAROJANI DEVI Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When the matter is called out, learned counsel for the appellant is absent.

(2.) We have heard learned counsel for the respondents, who has vehemently submitted that the appellant is an original petitioner, who had preferred writ petition for getting compassionate appointment for her daughter-in-law on the ground that the appellant is a widow of Late Sri Ganesh Ram, who expired on 19th March, 1994 and, therefore daughter-in-law should be appointed as Class-IV employee with the respondents. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent-Union of India that very purpose of compassionate appointment has been frustrated by now. The writ petition was preferred after approximately 19 years. Even otherwise also, the claim of compassionate appointment of her son was already rejected in the year 2001. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge and, hence, this Letters Patent Appeal may not be entertained by this Court.

(3.) Having heard learned counsel for the respondent-Union of India and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to entertain this Letters Patent Appeal mainly for the following facts and reasons: