RAJESH KUMAR Vs. CENTRAL COALFIELDS LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13. 3. 2008, passed in W. P. (S) No. 5374 of 2004 , whereby learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition which was filed by the appellant challenging the order dated 9. 4. 2003 passed by the respondent-authority rejecting the claim of the appellant for appointment on compassionate ground.

(2.) WHILE dismissing the writ petition, learned Single Judge recorded the following findings: "in the facts and circumstances, noticed above, it cannot be said that the rejection of the claim of the petitioner, on the ground that his name did not find place in the service records of ex-employee was unjustified. There was doubt about the documents relied by the petitioner. There is dispute over facts between the parties. Even if it is accepted that petitioner is son of ex-employee, now when he has survived for about eight years, I am not inclined to direct the respondents to consider his case for appointment on compassionate ground. The order dated 12. 3. 2008 passed in W. P. (S) No. 6398 of 2008-Tahal Mahto, relied by learned counsel for the petitioner, is of no help to the petitioner, as matter was remitted for reconsideration, on concession. It has been held in the case reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138-Umesh kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and others, that consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future and it cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over. Paragraph 11 of (2006) 5 SCC 766 State of jandk and others v. Sajad Ahmed Mir reads as follows:-

(3.) IN the facts and circumstances, noticed above, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. No costs. " having regard to the fact that the deceased-employee died in 2000 and there is serious dispute with regard to the genuineness of document on the basis of which the appellant is claiming to be the dependant- son of the deceased, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.