Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Heard Sri Vinod Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Arvind Nath Agarwal, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 3.
By this writ petition, a prayer is made for consideration of the case of petitioner for appointment in reference to the letter dated 28.06.2005.
The petitioner submitted that his father was erstwhile employee of respondents' organisation. He died in the year 1995 while in service. An application to seek compassionate appointment was given by petitioner's mother. It was responded by letter dated 28.06.2005, with a direction that the petitioner may apply under "son care category" for any suitable post as and when vacancies are published by the department in Employment News/ Rojgar Samachar. It would be given special weightage for issuing call letter.
It is submitted that an advertisement was issued by respondents in the year 2019 to call for the application. The petitioner has applied pursuant to it but call letter is not being sent to him, thus, appropriate directions have been sought.
We have considered the submissions and find that so as the compassionate appointment is concerned, it cannot be sought after expiry of more than 25 years of the death of father. The delay to seek compassionate appointment is fatal as the very object sought to be achieved get frustrated. The issue of delay in seeking compassionate appointment was decided by Apex Court in case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs State Of Haryana, 1994 SCC (4) 138. Paras 5 and 6 of the judgment are quoted hereunder for ready reference:-
"5. It is obvious from the above observations that the High Court endorses the policy of the State Government to make compassionate appointment in posts equivalent to the posts held by the deceased employees and above Classes III and IV. It is unnecessary to reiterate that these observations are contrary to law. If the dependant of the deceased employee finds it below his dignity to accept the post offered, he is free not to do so. The post is not offered to cater to his status but to see the family through the economic calamity.
6.For these very reasons, the compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over."
The fact however remains that if petitioner cannot be given compassionate appointment, he is praying for implementation of the order dated 28.06.2005.
Learned counsel for the petitioner was asked as to whether selection pursuant to advertisement of 2019 has taken place, he could not answer it.
In view of above, it cannot be said that even if the petitioner submitted an application for consideration of his candidature, it would not be taken care by the respondents subject to his eligibility. The writ petition cannot be filed for fishing enquiry when the petitioner is not even in know of the status of the selection pursuant to the advertisement.
The writ petition is however disposed of with a direction to the respondents to pass a speaking order on the representation made by the petitioner alleging that despite an application form submitted on 18.11.2019, he has not been sent the call letter. The copy of the said representation would be submitted by petitioner along with copy of this judgment for immediate action in the matter.
The writ petition is disposed of with aforesaid.
Order Date :- 21.1.2021 V.S.Singh