This intra-court appeal against a single judge order dismissing a writ petition for compassionate appointment was dismissed. The court held the appeal was time-barred and lacked merit as the delay indicated the family crisis had been averted.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 573/2022
Ganpat Parihar S/o Late Sh. Radhey Shyam Parihar, Aged About 38 Years, Resident Of Sutharo Ka Bas, Ummed Chowk, Jodhpur.
----Appellant
----Respondents
| For Appellant(s) | : | Mr. | Shyam Vyas |
|---|---|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : | - |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
Order
22/07/2022
This intra court appeal is directed against the order dated 21.08.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge of this court whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a direction upon the respondents to provide him compassionate appointment in place of his father, late Shri Radhey Shyam Parihar who expired while in service on has been dismissed.
The appeal is time barred by 1685 days.
Briefly stated facts of the case are that Shri Radhey Shyam Parihar, father of the appellant while working in the respondent
(2 of 3)
[SAW-573/2022]
department passed away on 29.06.2000. An application seeking compassionate appointment was filed by the mother of the appellant on 22.07.2000. It is stated that no action was taken on the application dated 22.07.2000 by the respondent department. Therefore, a subsequent application seeking compassionate appointment on behalf of the appellant was filed on 20.01.2003, which came to be rejected vide order dated 29.09.2011 inter alia on the ground that his case was considered and rejected as no vacancy was available.
The petitioner in the year 2017 by way of filing writ petition before learned Single Bench prayed for following reliefs:-
(i) The respondents may kindly be directed to appoint the petitioner as IV Grade employee.
(ii) The respondents may kindly be directed to appoint the petitioner on the post of Guard in pursuance to the advertisement dated 07.08.2017.
(iii) The respondent may kindly be directed to given all benefits to the petitioners with respect to his post
(iv) the order dated 29.09.2011 (Annex.07) may kindly be quashed and set-aside.
(v) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.
The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the appointment cannot be granted after six years from the order of rejection dated 29.09.2011.
Hence, this appeal.
Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
In the matter of Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman and Managing Director vs. Parden Oraon 2021 SCC OnLine SC 299 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse
(3 of 3)
[SAW-573/2022]
of reasonable period as the concession of such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in the future. The object of compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden financial crisis and penury that it faces at the time of death of sole bread winner. Compassionate appointment cannot be claimed or offered after a significant lapse of time and after the crisis is over.
We are in agreement with the reasons assigned by Single Bench for dismissing the writ petition. The applications for compassionate appointment filed by the appellant in the year 2000/2003 was rejected on 29.09.2011. Since, the appellant did not challenge the order dated 29.09.2011 for six years, it can be presumed that the crisis faced by the family must have been averted with the passage of time.
As a consequence, we find no force in this appeal, which is dismissed as being time barred and so also on merits.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
(SANDEEP MEHTA),J
51-KshamaD/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appeal for compassionate appointment is maintainable after a lapse of over six years from the date of the rejection order.
Whether the concession of compassionate appointment is a vested right that can be exercised after the financial crisis has long been averted.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman and Managing Director vs. Parden OraonFollowed¶31
Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman and Managing Director vs. Parden Oraon 2021 SCC OnLine SC 299 · Who else cites this
Ganpat Parihar
The Food Corporation Of India
Sandeep Mehta
Kuldeep Mathur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
