Kaushliya Devi v. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Central Coalfields Limited (CCL), Ranchi

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN. ------ For the petitioner(s): For the respondent(s): Mr. Abhishek Srivastava, Advocate. Ms. Rashmi Kumar, Advocate. ----- 06/24.01.2023: Heard the counsel for the parties.

By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner claims for compassionate appointment as her father died in harness on 1.3.1984.

The petitioner was unmarried when she applied for grant of compassionate appointment on 1.12.1994 i.e. after more than 10 years of death of deceased. Her application was rejected by non-speaking order on 12/13.1.2000. The petitioner then again made a mercy application on 27.8.2001 when the petitioner was orally informed that her case was rejected as she was a married daughter of the deceased.

Admittedly, no written communication was made by the respondents to the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter approached the authority/respondent as no final order was passed by the respondents on the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner again approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition on 2.8.2019.

Though, initially an objection was taken that the order of rejection dated 12/13-1.2000 is not reasoned one, but I am not inclined to interfere with the order nor I am inclined to pass a positive order in favour of the petitioner directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground, solely because of delay, which has occurred.

From the dates mentioned, it is admitted that the petitioner applied for grant of her compassionate appointment after more than ten and half years of the death of the deceased. The petitioner again approached this Court in the year 2019. Admittedly her claim for compassionate appointment was rejected in the year 2000 by an order, which is non-speaking. This clearly suggests that there is laches on the part of the petitioner.

Further the sole purpose for grant of compassionate appointment is to help the family of the deceased bread winner, to over come the immediate financial hardship. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Santosh Kumar Dubey Vs. State of U.P. reported in (2009) 6 SCC 481, in paragraphs 11 and 12, has held as under:- “11. The very concept of giving a compassionate appointment is to tide over the financial difficulties that are faced by the family of the deceased due to the death of the earning members of the family. There is immediate loss of earning for which the family suffers financial hardship. The benefit is given so that the family can tide over such financial constraints. 12. The request for appointment on compassionate grounds should be reasonable and proximate to the time of the death of the bread earner of the family, inasmuch as the very purpose of giving such benefit is to make financial help available to the family to overcome sudden economic crisis occurring in the family of the deceased who has died in

2. harness. But this, however, cannot be another source of recruitment. This also cannot be treated as a bonanza and also as a right to get an appointment in government service.”

Now, nearly about 39 years have lapsed after the death of her father and the petitioner has survived. Admittedly, she is married and is residing with her husband, which is apparent from cause title of this writ petition.

Considering the aforesaid facts, no relief can be granted to the petitioner by way of granting her compassionate appointment.