Chakradhar Prasad Barik v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 5718 of 2018 Chakradhar Prasad Barik S/o Late B. M. Barik Aged About 38 Years R/o Village Tribhouna Police Station Pusour, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Health And Family Welfare Department, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, New Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
2. Director Directorate Of Health Services, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
3. Deputy Director Directorate Of Health Services Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
4. Chief Medical And Health Officer Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
----Respondents For Petitioner :
Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate For Respondents :
Mr. Sudhir Kumar Bajpai, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board 04/09/2018
1. The challenge in the present writ petition is to the impugned order (Annexure P/1) dated 01.05.2012, whereby the claim for compassionate appointment of the petitioner has been rejected.
2. Without entering into the merits of the case, this Court is inclined to dismiss the petition on the ground that the writ petition suffers from delay and laches. The claim of the petitioner was rejected vide impugned order dated 01.05.2012 and the present writ petition has been filed after more than 6 years i.e. on 27.08.2018.
3. The law so far as the compassionate appointment is concerned, it is by now well settled that the claim for compassionate appointment should be raised promptly from the date of death of the deceased employee.
The object for the grant of compassionate appointment is to meet the immediate need of the family, which has lost the earning member or the bread earner of the family.
4. The Supreme Court in case of State of Gujarat and Others Vs. Arvindkumar T. Tiwari & Another, 2012 (9) SCC 545, has held as under:
"8. It is a settled legal proposition that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is not simply another method of recruitment. As claim to be appointed on such a ground, has to be considered in accordance with the rules, regulations or administrative instructions governing the subject, taking into consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased. ...............however, before a candidate is considered for a post or even for admission to the institution, he must fulfill the eligibility criteria."
5. The same view has further been re-iterated by the Supreme Court in case of State of Uttar Pradesh and Others Vs. Pankaj Kumar Vishnoi (2013(11)SCC 178).
6. The question of delay and laches came to be considered very recently by the Supreme Court in case of State of Uttaranchal and Another v. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari and Others1 in which the court has declined to exercise extraordinary jurisdiction in case the petitioner invokes jurisdiction of court with inordinate delay, and held as under : "In State of T.N. v. Seshachalam[8], this Court, testing the equality clause on the bedrock of delay and laches pertaining to grant of service benefit, has ruled thus: - ...filing of representations alone would not save the period of limitation. Delay or laches is a relevant factor for a court of law to determine the question as to whether the claim made by an applicant deserves consideration. Delay and/or laches on the part of a government servant may deprive him of the benefit which had been given to others. Article 14 of the Constitution of India would not, in a situation of that nature, be attracted as it is well known that law leans in favour of those who are alert and vigilant."
7. The Supreme Court in case of Eastern Coalfields Limited Vs. Anil Badyakar and Others, 2009 (13) SCC 112 has held as under : 1 2013 (12) SCC 179
"20. The principles indicated above would give a clear indication that the compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered after a lapse of time and after the crisis is over."
8. Further, in the case of Local Administration Department and Another Vs. M.Selvanayagam @ Kumaravelu, 2011 (13) SCC 42, the Supreme Court reiterating the principles relating to compassionate appointment has held as under :
"11. It has been said a number of times earlier but it needs to be recalled here that under the scheme of compassionate appointment, in case of an employee dying in harness one of his eligible dependents is given a job with the sole objective to provide immediate succour to the family which may suddenly find itself in dire straits as a result of the death of the bread winner. An appointment made many years after the death of the employee or without due consideration of the financial resources available to his/her dependents and the financial deprivation caused to the dependents as a result of his death, simply because the claimant happened to be one of the dependents of the deceased employee would be directly in conflict with Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution and hence, quite bad and illegal. In dealing with cases of compassionate appointment, it is imperative to keep this vital aspect in mind.
12. Ideally, the appointment on compassionate basis should be made without any loss of time but having regard to the delays in the administrative process and several other relevant factors....."
9. In the case of Shreejith L. Vs. Deputy Director (Education) Kerala and Others, 2012 (7) SCC 248 it was held as under: "18. ...............The High Court appears to have confused an application required to be filed within the period stipulated for the purpose with the availability of a vacancy against which such an application could be considered by the Manager. These were two distinctly different matters. What was important was the making of an application for appointment on compassionate basis within the period stipulated for the purpose. Whether or not a vacancy is available had nothing to do with the making of the application itself.
19. An application could and indeed ought to have been made by respondent No.1 within the time stipulated, regardless whether there was a vacancy already available or likely to become available in the near or distant future. Respondent No.1 having failed to do that, could not claim a compassionate appointment especially when there was nothing on record to suggest that the family was in penury notwithstanding the lapse of a considerable period since the demise of the bread-winner;....."
10. Very recently in case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewarage Board and Others v. T.T. Murali Babu2, the Supreme Court has clearly held that delay may have impact on others' ripened 2 2014 (4) SCC 108
rights and may unnecessarily drag others into litigation, and expressed their opinion as under- "16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the Court would be under legal obligation to scrutinize whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity.
In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the Court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant-a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, "procrastination is the greatest thief of time" and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay doesbring in hazard and causes injury to the lis. In the case at hand, though there has been four years' delay in approaching the court, yet the writ court chose not to address the same. It is the duty of the court to scrutinize whether such enormous delay is to be ignored without any justification.
That apart, in the present case, such belated approach gains more significance as the respondent-employee being absolutely careless to his duty and nurturing a lackadaisical attitude to the responsibility had remained unauthorisedly absent on the pretext of some kind of ill health. We repeat at the cost of repetition that remaining innocuously oblivious to such delay does not foster the cause of justice. On the contrary, it brings in injustice, for it is likely to affect others. Such delay may have impact on others' ripened rights and may unnecessarily drag others into litigation which in acceptable realm of probability, may have been treated to have attained finality. A court is not expected to give indulgence to such indolent persons - who compete with 'Kumbhakarna' or for that matter 'Rip Van Winkle'.
In our considered opinion, such delay does not deserve any indulgence and on the said ground alone the writ court should have thrown the petition overboard at the very threshold."
11.
For all the aforesaid reasons, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition, the same stands dismissed on the ground of delay itself.
Sd/- (P. Sam Koshy) Judge Ved