The Chhattisgarh High Court rejected a writ petition by two petitioners seeking compassionate employment in their deceased employee's name. The court held that the petition suffered from fatal delay, having been filed over seven years after the initial rejection.
Writ petition dismissed as it suffers from fatal delay and laches.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
-1-
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 4749 of 2021
1. Ku. Tripti Daya D/o Late Shri Praveen Kumar Daya Aged About 23 Years Occupation Student R/o Sirgitti Govind Nagar, Row No. 4, Qr. No. 10, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
2. Smt. Tabitha Daya Wd/o Late Praveen Kumar Daya Aged About 63 Years Occupation Ex. Teacher R/o Sirgitti Govind Nagar, Row No. 4, Qr. No. 10, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Tribal (S T/ S C) Devlp. Department Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur (Chhattisgarh)
2. The Assistant Commissioner Tribal Development Department, Kanker, District Kanker Chhattisgarh
3. The Block Education Officer Tribal Development, Antagarh District North Baster Kanker Chhattisgarh
---Respondents
For Petitioner : Shri Ashok Kumar Shukla, Advocate. For State : Ms. Sunita Jain, G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board
08.09.2021
1. Aggrieved by the order Annexure P/1 dated 06.09.2014, the present writ petition has been filed.
2. Vide the impugned order, the claim for compassionate appointment of the petitioners has been rejected.
3. At the outset, this Court is of the opinion that the writ petition suffers from delay laches as the present writ petition has been filed after a period of seven years from the date of rejection of the claim for compassionate appointment. The law so far as grant of compassionate appointment is by now well settled and the Hon'ble Supreme Court also have in a couple of decisions empathetically laid
-2-
down that a claim for compassionate appointment has to be raised and has also to be decided within a reasonable time from date of death. A claim raised at a belated stage forces the Court and Tribunal to draw an inference that the petitioners had sufficient source of income to sustain themselves and that is the reason that they did not challenge the impugned order of rejection at the outset or within a reasonable period of time.
4. The Supreme Court and also this High Court have repeatedly held that the claim for compassionate appointment cannot be substituted as an alternative source of employment or as a means of recruitment.
5. In the instant case, the death of the deceased employee was of 30.03.2008 and the claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground of delay on 06.09.2014, in-spite of that the present writ petition has now again been filed at a much more belated stage of more than 7 years. The writ petition thus deserves to be and is accordingly rejected only on the ground of delay laches.
Sd/(P. Sam Koshy) Judge
J-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition seeking compassionate appointment can be allowed when filed after a period of more than seven years?
Whether the delay in filing the present writ petition constitutes laches to justify rejection?
Whether compassionate appointment can serve as an alternative source of employment or recruitment?
Ku. Tripti Daya
Smt. Tabitha Daya
The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary
The Assistant Commissioner Tribal Development Department
The Block Education Officer Tribal Development
P. Sam Koshy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
