STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & Anr. v. SHASHI KUMAR
Case at a glance
Outcome
Disposed of
The appeal is disposed of in the above terms
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 14, 16, 226
Judgment
#5. Insofar as the individual facts pertaining to the respondent are concerned, it has emerged from the record that the Writ Petition before the High Court was instituted on 11 May 2015. The application for compassionate appointment was submitted on 8 May 2007. On 15 January 2008 the Additional Secretary had required that the amount realized by way of pension be included in the income statement of the family. The respondent waited thereafter for a period in excess of seven years to move a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal case, this Court has emphasized that the basis of a scheme of compassionate appointment lies in the need of providing immediate assistance to the family of the deceased employee. This sense of immediacy is evidently lost by the delay on the part of the dependant in seeking compassionate appointment. The respondent is debarred from seeking compassionate appointment by the delay as well as by the lapse of time which has taken place. [Paras 40 and 42] [456-D-F; 457-B]
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: The appeal is disposed of in the above terms
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 14, 16, 226.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.