Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15249 of 2019 Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Respondent :- Union Of India And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jitendra Singh,Ashish Srivastava,Man Bahadur Singh Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Santosh Kumar Mishra Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Sri Chandrika Prasad, learned Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent no.1.
Sri Santosh Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 2 to 5 is present.
The petitioner herein seeks to challenge the order dated 23.09.2011 by which his claim for compassionate appointment had been rejected by respondent no.2. of India.
To explain latches of 8 years in presenting the writ petition, it is contended that the application of the petitioner was kept pending for a roaster system in the year 2008 and he was informed that his claim would be considered as and when, the vacancy occurs.
On 08.08.2019, the petitioner personally visited the Office of the Food Corporation of India to enquire about the fate of his application, he was then informed that his claim was rejected way back on 23.09.2011. It is then contended that the petitioner came to know about the order of rejection of his claim dated 23.09.2011 only on 08.08.2019.
Considering the said explanation, it is pertinent to note as per own admission of the petitioner, for approximately a period of more than ten years i.e. uptill 08.08.2019, he did not approach the Office concerned to know about the fate of his application for compassionate appointment. The Court, therefore, reaches at a conclusion that the petitioner has been able to meet the financial constraints faced by the family after death of his father. He was never in need of the compassionate appointment, object of which is only to grant immediate relief to the dependants of the deceased employee.
It is settled that the object of compassionate appointment is not to grant employment but to give immediate relief to the dependants of the deceased to overcome financial crisis.
For the latches on the part of the petitioner and the admitted fact that he did not pursue his claim for long, the writ petition cannot be entertained.
Dismissed, as such.
Order Date :- 26.9.2019 P Kesari