Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 478 (ORI)

Sri Sachindra Kumar Malla v. Director General, Central Industrial Security Force, Delhi

2007-06-25

A.K.SAMANTARAY, B.P.DAS

body2007
ORDER 25.06.2007 — Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. S. K. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel (Central). The petitioner in this writ petition has sought for a direction to the Opposite Parties to provide him appointment on Rehabilitation/Compassionate ground on account of the death of his father while serving as a Security Guard in the Central Industrial Security Force Unit at FCI, Sindhri. The petitioner’s father died due to stab injury in a scuffle in Sindhri while he was working as a Security Guard at Sindhri on 13.3.1976. As the petitioner was then a minor, he did not apply for compassionate appointment. He applied for compassionate appointment in the year 1995. His application for appointment on compassionate ground was considered and rejected by the Director General of CISF, HQ. (O.P.No. 1). The order of rejection communicated to the petition¬er vide Annexure-1 dated 14.7.1997 is under challenge in this writ petition. The opposite parties have filed a counter affidavit stating therein that the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was considered by the competent authority, but the same was rejected being a belated one. According to the opposite parties, the father of the petitioner died on 13.3.1976 and although the petitioner was a minor then, he could have applied in the year 1991, when he attained majority. It is a fact that appointment under the compassionate ground is for the purpose of immediate assistance to the family on the passing away of the government servant in harness. According to the opposite parties, the very fact that the family has been able to manage somehow for about 19 years is an adequate proof to show that the family had some dependable means of subsistence. Therefore, such belated request for compassionate appointment defeats the very purpose of rehabilitation appointment. In view of the above position, we do not find any infirmity in the reasoning advanced by the opposite parties. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.