IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
L.P.A. No.1134 of 2009(O&M)
Date of decision: 12.11.2009
State of Haryana and another.
-----Appellants
Vs.
Naresh Kumar.
-----Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH
Present:- Mr. Rameshwar Malik, Addl.A.G., Haryana.
for the appellants.
Mr. Vikas Malik, Advocate
for respondent/caveator.
---
ORDER:
1. Delay condoned. Heard on merits.
2. Main contention raised in this appeal is that Maha
Singh father of the respondent took retirement on medical
grounds in the year 1999 and application filed by the respondent
for compassionate appointment, as per policy dated 31.8.1995,
Annexure P-2, was considered and rejected in the year 1999, but
writ petition was filed in the year 2007. In absence of prompt
claim, after accrual of cause of action, the petition seeking
LPA No.1134 of 2009 2
direction for compassionate appointment was highly belated and
should have been dismissed on this ground.
3. Only explanation furnished by learned counsel for the
respondent/caveator is that before filing the present writ petition,
the respondent had filed a writ petition on 31.8.2006, in which a
direction to consider the representation of the petitioner was
given. This contention cannot be accepted, as even earlier writ
petition was filed seven years after accrual of cause of action and
mere direction to consider representation is not enough to
overcome the bar of laches.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent-caveator also
relied upon judgment of this Court dated 20.12.2005 in C.W.P.
No.19693 of 2004 Sushil Kumar v. State of Haryana on merits.
We are unable to accept this submission, as the respondent
having approached the Court after 7/8 years of accrual of cause
of action, could not be given the benefit of compassionate
appointment. The object of compassionate appointment is to
enable the family to tide over sudden crisis and not to create a
right and such appointment cannot be given after lapse of time.
Reference may be made to judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana 1994 (4)
SCC 138 and State of J&K v. Sajad Ahmed Mir (2006) 5 SCC
766.
In view of above, we allow this appeal and dismiss the
writ petition filed by the respondent.
LPA No.1134 of 2009 3
(ADARSH KUMAR GOEL)
JUDGE
November 12, 2009 ( GURDEV SINGH )
ashwani JUDGE