ALBERT KERKETTA Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This contempt application has been filed alleging noncompliance of order dated 16.10.2001 passed in W.P.(S) No. 5278 of 2001.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the State submitted that father of the petitioner died far back on 9.11.1991, petitioner filed the said writ petition after about 10 years in 2001. This Court observed that petitioner could not show that he applied in January, 1993. However, it was observed that if he applied on 15.6.1995, within five years of death of his father, his case can be considered. Even after the said order, petitioner did not furnish required documents. The affidavit Annexure -4 was sworn in December, 2004. If the order was not complied, petitioner could move this Court, within a reasonable time, but this contempt petition was filed after about six years. He further submitted that the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground cannot be kept alive for indefinite period. However, though he was not found eligible and he is not entitled to appointment on compassionate ground, under the sword of this contempt petition, hanging, appointment letter dated 20.12.2008 has been issued.

(3.) PETITIONERS father died in 1991. He filed writ petition in 2001, which was disposed of on 16.10.2001. If the authorities were delaying the matter, he should have filed this contempt petition within a reasonable time, but it was filed after about six years. This supports the contention of the opposite party that the petitioner was delaying in complying with the required formalities. The claim of compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time, and it cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over -see (1994) 4 SCC 138 Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and (2006) 5 SCC 766State of J& K and others v. Sajad Ahmad Mir. Petitioner has been given appointment letter, apparently under the threat of this contempt petition. He is not satisfied even by that. Thus it is clear that petitioner has not been serious about his claim for appointment on compassionate ground.