Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 728 (PAT)

Munni Devi v. Union Of India

2007-04-11

J.N.SINGH, NARAYAN ROY

body2007
Judgment 1. Heard Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, learned Senior Counsel for the appellants and Mr. Arun Kumar Arun, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India. 2. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 6.7.2004 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 10386 of 2003 whereby and whereunder the writ application was dismissed rejecting the prayer of the appellant no. 1 for her appointment on compassionate ground. 3. It appears from the pleadings of the parties that the husband of appellant no. 1 died-in-harness in the year 1987 while working as Lance Nayak in Indian Army. The appellant no. 1-widow thereafter applied for her appointment on compassionate ground, according to her, some times in the year 1991. The matter, thereafter, remained pending and ultimately vide letter dated 30th June, 2003 and 8.8.2003 it was communicated to appellant no. 1 that her prayer for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected, which necessitated her coming to this court invoking its writ jurisdiction. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the application filed by the appellant no. 1 remained pending for several years as the matter was under process and from time to time she was asked to furnish details which was done by the appellant no. 1 but ultimately after a long period her prayer was rejected in 2003. It is further submitted by learned counsel that though she was getting family pension and that would, in no way, debar her from getting appointment on compassionate ground as per the settled law that any pecuniary benefit received under rules would not disqualify the incumbent for appointment on compassionate ground. Counsel for the appellants in these view of the matter, submitted that learned Single Judge of this court merely could not have dismissed the writ application on the ground fof delay and laches alone. 5. Learned counsel for the Union of India, on the contrary, submitted that on account of death of the husband of the appellant no. 1, she was required to apply for appointment on compassionate ground within one year from the date of death but she applied to the Union of India in the year 1994 though she is also said to have applied for States job sometimes in the year 1991 and the application as such, was time barred. 1, she was required to apply for appointment on compassionate ground within one year from the date of death but she applied to the Union of India in the year 1994 though she is also said to have applied for States job sometimes in the year 1991 and the application as such, was time barred. The authorities, in this view of matter, were justified in rejecting her prayer for appointment on compassionate ground. 6. From the order impugned and the materials on record, it appears that death of the husband of appellant no. 1 had occurred in 1987 whereas she applied for her appointment on compassionate ground in 1991 and 1994 respectively. The application, as such, was processed and rejected finding it time barred coupled with the fact that she was also getting family pension. Learned counsel for the appellants, however, tried to persuade the court that the appellant no. 1, in fact, had applied in 1989 and her application was kept pending for a long period and thus, she had legitimate expectation that she might be appointed on compassionate ground anytime. No averment, however, has been made in the writ application as to the exact date of application in the year 1989. 7. From the materials on record, it is also manifest that she applied twice; once for States job in 1991 and in 1994 for appointment on compassionate ground under the Union of India. 8. Learned Single Judge of this Court, on appreciation of facts and submissions of the parties, held that it would not be possible for this Court to direct the respondents to provide anything further beyond the right which the writ petitioners have. Learned Single Judge, substantially, based his finding on the facts that she applied after the prescribed period of death of her husband and she was getting family pension. The question of grant of family pension, however, would not be a ground to debar her but other factors at the same time would be relevant to consider her for appointment on compassionate ground. 9. It is not in dispute that the appellant no. 1 applied for her appointment on compassionate ground beyond a period of one year and according to the rules her application was time barred. 10. Besides all these questions, it appears that the appellant no. 9. It is not in dispute that the appellant no. 1 applied for her appointment on compassionate ground beyond a period of one year and according to the rules her application was time barred. 10. Besides all these questions, it appears that the appellant no. 1-widow survived even after the death of her husband in 1987 till date and now at the fag end, it would not be desirable to direct for any appointment on compassionate ground. The purpose of compassionate appointment is to mitigate the hardship of the family on account of death of the bread earner. Since the family survived for a period of long time right from 1987, need of appointment on compassionate ground thus becomes non-existent. 11. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons aforementioned, we do not find any merit in this appeal. 12. This Letters Patent Appeal is accordingly dismissed.