In this letters patent appeal, the High Court dismissed the challenge against the Single Judge's order rejecting the appellant's claim for compassionate appointment as delay, laches, and lack of merit were established.
Appeal dismissed; appellant's claim for compassionate appointment rejected based on delay and lack of necessity.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Letters Patent Appeal No.783 of 2015 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 16, 2015
Amandeep Singh
.....Appellant
versus
State of Punjab and another
.....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B.BAJANTHRI.
Present: Mr.Sanjeev Kumar, Advocate, for Mr.H.S.Batth, Advocate, for the appellant.
-.-
Surya Kant, J. (Oral)
This letters patent appeal is directed against the order dated 24.04.2015 passed by learned Single Judge whereby the appellant's writ petition has been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches as well as on merits. In the said writ petition filed in the year 2015, the appellant laid challenge to the order dated 8/12.06.2009 rejecting his claim for appointment on compassionate ground.
Having heard learned counsel for the appellant at some length, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order passed by learned Single Judge. The appellant claims to be the adopted son of Bahadar Singh who died while in service on 07.12.2007. The appellant sought appointment on compassionate ground but respondent No.2-Corporation (PUNSUP) rejected his claim vide order dated 8/12.06.2009.
MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.08.11 11:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
[2]
LPA No.783 of 2015 (O&M)
The appellant chose to challenge that order after a period of six years.
Learned Single Judge has taken notice of the fact that admittedly the deceased bequeathed his moveable as well as immovable properties like house, shops and land besides cash amount lying in the bank, in favour of the appelant and other family members. Thus, on merits also, the appellant does not need compassionate appointment for the sustenance of family.
No case to interfere with the order passed by learned Single Judge is made out.
Dismissed.
[SURYA KANT] JUDGE July 16, 2015 [P.B.BAJANTHRI] mohinder JUDGE
MOHINDER KUMAR 2015.08.11 11:55 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a compassionate appointment claim stands barred due to delay and laches where the applicant inherited sufficient property.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Single Judge's dismissal of the writ petition challenging the rejection of compassionate appointment.
Amandeep Singh
State of Punjab
Punsup
Surya Kant
P.B. Bajanthri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
