The petitioner sought appointment on compassionate grounds after his father died in 1987. The court dismissed the belated petition in limine, holding that appointments are meant for sudden family hardship and the 27-year delay negated the claim.
Writ petition dismissed in limine on the ground of laches; no order as to costs.
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 UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1871 of 2014
Gaurav Rathor … Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand& others … Respondents
Mr. Amit Kapri, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Mr. B.P.S. Mer, learned Brief Holder, present for the State.
Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral)
Ankit
(Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 13.11.2014
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a claim for appointment on compassionate grounds filed over 27 years after the breadwinner's death is permissible.
Whether the delay of 27 years defeats the prayer for compassionate appointment.
Whether the writ petition is barred by the principle of laches.
Gaurav Rathor
State of Uttarakhand
Sudhanshu Dhulia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
