Dismissed

L.Tejeswar v. Union of India

Orissa HC7 Aug 2019WP(C)/14045/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed a writ petition seeking compassionate appointment for the petitioner, arising from the premature death of his father. The Court held that the claim is barred by delay and laches as the applicant failed to cooperate with authorities for over 13 years despite multiple summonses, and the authorities' guidelines require consideration within three years of occurrence. No new appoint

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed as the claim is barred by delay and laches due to the petitioner's continued non-cooperation for over 13 years.

L.Tejeswar Vs Union of India — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2019)

¶1

W.P.(C) No. 14045 of 2011

¶2

07.08.2019 None appears for the petitioner at the time of

¶3

call.

¶4

Mr. D.K. Sahoo, learned Central Government Counsel is present.

¶5

Perused the record. The petitioner has filed this application seeking direction to the opposite parties to consider his case for compassionate appointment befitting to his qualification by engaging him either in ‘C’ or ‘D’ category employee as expeditiously as possible.

¶6

It appears that the father of the petitioner late Dillip Rao, who was working as Mate, died prematurely on 16.09.1998 and, as such, after his death, all the terminal benefits have been extended. But the petitioner claims that he should be given compassionate appointment. Due to non-consideration of the same, he approached this Court by filing the present application.

¶7

Mr. D.K. Sahoo, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the opposite parties referring to the counter affidavit states that the petitioner and his mother L. Suryamani Devi submitted separate applications on 28.12.1998 to Engineer-in-Chief’s Branch, Army Headquarters, New Delhi when the petitioner was studying in 10^th class. After submission of such application, GE (I) Gopalpur-on-Sea convened a Board of Officers for consideration of appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground on 09.02.1999 and the petitioner was duly informed to appear before the Board. But in spite of such communication made, neither the

¶8

¶9

petitioner appeared before the Board nor produced any document required for consideration of compassionate appointment. Thereby, the application of the petitioner has not been considered. It is further contended that even vide letter dated 15.07.2000, the GE (I) Gopalpur-on-Sea requested the Chief Medical Officer, Berhampur, Ganjam for issuance of medical certificate in respect of the petitioner after checkup, which was duly served on the petitioner, but the petitioner did not appear before the Chief Medical Officer. In such view of the matter, the claim of the petitioner cannot sustain and accordingly his prayer for compassionate appointment has been rejected.

¶10

Considering the documents available on record and also the submission made by Mr. D.K. Sahoo, learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the opposite parties and on perusal of the counter affidavit, it appears that admittedly the father of the petitioner late Dillip Rao, who was working as Mate, died prematurely on 16.09.1998, and after his death the terminal benefits admissible to his post was released in favour of his family members. Subsequently the petitioner submitted application on 28.12.1998 claiming for compassionate appointment and such application was considered by the authority, and thereafter vide letter dated 09.02.1999, the opposite parties called upon the petitioner to appear before the Board along with certain documents. But, neither the petitioner appeared before the Board on the date fixed nor produced any document for consideration of compassionate appointment. Even subsequently the

¶11

¶12

opposite parties vide letter dated 15.07.2000 requested the Chief Medical Officer, Berhampur, Ganjam for issuance of medical certificate in respect of the petitioner after checkup, which was also communicated to the petitioner, so that he can go for checkup, but he did not respond the same. In such view of the matter, once the petitioner not responded the correspondence made by the opposite parties, subsequently after lapse of more than 13 years, he could not have claimed that he should be given compassionate appointment. As such, as per the guidelines of the authority, compassionate appointment can only be considered within a period of three years from the date of occurrence. Further, the petitioner claims that similarly situated persons have been given appointment, whereas he has been discriminated. But it appears that the petitioner has never cooperated with the authorities at the relevant point of time for consideration of his case for compassionate appointment. Thereby, after more than 13 years, the claim of the petitioner cannot be revived by way of filing the present writ petition, which is suffers from delay and laches.

¶13

Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to entertain this application and the same is hereby dismissed.

¶14

…………….…………… (DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE

¶15

Ashok

¶16

L.Tejeswar v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

L.Tejeswar v. Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashyumat Sur Vs State of Odisha

Rabinarayan Naik Vs State and Ors.

Satyabhama Das Vs Suptd.,Central Jail

Stewart School,Ctc. Vs State

Shiv Nath Ray Vs Orissa Hydro Power

Maguni Ch.Pradhan Vs State and Anr.