This special appeal against a writ petition dismissal was found devoid of merit due to inordinate delay. The court upheld the lower court's view that invoking equitable jurisdiction for compassionate appointment after eleven years is unjustified when the family might no longer be in financial distress.
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
In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan
Jaipur Bench
DB Special Appeal (W) No.2054/ 2014
Dat e of Or der ::: 1 5 / 1 / 2 0 1 5
Hon 'ble Mr . Ju st ice Aj ay Rast ogi Hon 'ble Mr . Ju st ice JK Ran k a
Mr. NK Gautam, for appellant.
Instant intra court appeal has been preferred against the order of Ld. Single Judge dt.13.11.2014.
A joint writ petition by the widow and her son came to be preferred seeking compassionate appointment for petitioner-2 son of deceased who died while in service on 17.9.2003. It appears that when application initially processed there was some forgery in the date of birth certificate of appellant-2 furnished and the appellant was accordingly informed on 22.11.2005 and application seeking compassionate
appointment was rejected on 3.5.2006.
The order dt.3.5.2006 came to be challenged by filing writ petition in the year 2014 and the grievance was that there was a threat to the family of deceased that they may initiate criminal action for furnishing alleged forge date of birth certificate by the respondent in their communication dt.22.11.2005 and under the fear that if such steps have been
2
taken they may face alleged criminal action and even after rejection of their application dt.3.5.2006, no steps were taken for ventilating the grievance and writ petition came to be filed in the year 2014 and that has been dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay by the Ld. Single Judge and also taking note of the earlier communication dt.22.11.2005.
Compassionate appointment cannot be claimed by the dependent as a matter of right and it is only to provide succor to the members of the deceased family who was a bread winner and died in harness but in the instant case bread winner died way back on 17.9.2003 and the writ petition came to be filed only in 2014, in totality of the matter, the Ld. Single Judge was of the view that apart from inordinate delay, there appears no reason now to invoke equitable jurisdiction to consider the application of appellant no.2 for compassionate appointment.
We do not find any error being committed by the Ld. Single Judge and after alm ost 11 years have rolled when the writ petition has been filed in this Court seeking compassionate appointment and certainly the family of deceased after decade cannot be said to be under financial distress which must have come in the passage of time and the terminal benefits of the deceased employee must have been
paid and as observed compassionate appointm ent is an exception to the mode of public employment.
3
Consequently, the special appeal being devoid of merit
accordingly dism issed.
[ JK Ran k a] , J. [ Aj ay Rast ogi] , J.
dsr/ -
"All corrections made in the judgment/order have been incorporated in the judgment/order being
emailed"
Datar Singh
P.S.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the inordinate delay of nearly 11 years bars the invocation of equitable jurisdiction for compassionate appointment.
Whether the challenge against the dismissal of a preceding writ petition based on delay is sustainable.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Son of deceased (Appellant-2)
State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Ayay Rastogi
JK Ranka
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
