Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1198 (ALL)

Krishna Kumar Shukla v. State of U. P. and others

2010-04-13

ANIL KUMAR

body2010
Anil Kumar,J. - 1. By means of present writ petition, petitioner prays for quashing of the order dated 01.07.2002 passed by opposite party no.2(District Magistrate, Gonda) by which opposite party no. 4 has been appointed on compassionate ground. 2. Heard Sri N.K. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel on behalf of opposite party nos. 1 & 2, Sri Vishal Verma on behalf of opposite party no. 3 and perused the record. 3. Brief facts of the present case are that the father of the petitioner(Devi Prasad) who was working as Primary Teacher in Primary School, Pure Lalak (Khargoopur), Gonda, during the tenure of his service died on 15.12.2001. After his death, the compassionate appointment was given to one Sri Pawan Kumar Shukla by order dated 01.07.2002 who is the step brother of the petitioner, born out of the wedlock of the deceased Devi prasad and Smt. Kalawati. 4. Aggrieved by the order dated 01.07.2002 passed by the opposite party no. 2 i.e. District Magistrate, Gonda by which Sri Pawan Kumar Shukla, opposite party no. 4 was given appointment on compassionate ground. The petitioner submitted a representation to the opposite party no. 2 on the ground that he should be given appointment being the son of the deceased Devi Prasad born out of the wedlock of Devi Prasad and first wife who died on 13.08.1986 but nothing has been done in the matter in question in spite of repeated representations made by the petitioner at the end of the opposite party no. 2, in this regard the averments has been made in Para 13 of the writ petition which is quoted hereinbelow: - "That thereafter the petitioner constantly perused the matter by giving the representation in writing which were duly received by the office of the opposite party no. 3 on 01.07.2002, 15.10.2002, 13.07.2003, 02.06.2004, 30.09.2005, 03.09.2006, 02.10. 2007, 07.04.2008 and 31.12.2009. But till the date no action has been taken in respect of the appointment of the petitioner under Dying-In-Harness Rules." 5. So, the present present writ petition has been filed thereby challenging the order dated 01.07.2002 passed by opposite party no. 2. 6. 3 on 01.07.2002, 15.10.2002, 13.07.2003, 02.06.2004, 30.09.2005, 03.09.2006, 02.10. 2007, 07.04.2008 and 31.12.2009. But till the date no action has been taken in respect of the appointment of the petitioner under Dying-In-Harness Rules." 5. So, the present present writ petition has been filed thereby challenging the order dated 01.07.2002 passed by opposite party no. 2. 6. In view of the said fact as per the averments made by the petitioner in the present case, the compassionate appointment has already been given to one of the son of the deceased Devi Prasad and taking into consideration the law on the point that the compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. petitioner is not entitled for any relief as claimed by him in the present case. Further, even otherwise relief as claimed by the petitioner for quashing of the order dated 01.07.2002 passed by opposite party no. 2 by which the opposite party no. 4 has been given appointment on compassionate ground cannot be granted at such a belated stage and the present petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches alone. Because in view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner that after the representation made by the petitioner against the order dated 01.07.2002 in the year 2002, the petitioner is continuously making representations for redressal of his grievances but the same has not been considered till date, hence writ petition has been filed, does not extend the period of limitation for filing the present writ petition before this Court, in order to enable him to challenge the order dated 01.07.2002 by means of present writ petition. In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of C.Jacob Vs. Director of Geology and Mining 1 (2008) 10 SCC 115 . 7. Further, in the case of Union of India and others Vs. M.K. Sarkar (2010) 2 SCC, 59 wherein the Apex Court held as under: - "When a belated representation in regard to a "state" or "dead" issue/dispute is considered and decided, in compliance with a direction by the court/tribunal to do so, the date of such decision cannot be considered as furnishing a fresh cause of action for reviving the "dead" issue or time-barred dispute. The issue of limitation or delay and laches should be considered with reference to the original cause of action and not with reference to the date on which an order is passed in compliance with a court's direction. Neither a court's direction to consider a representation issued without examining the merits, nor a decision given in compliance with such direction, will extend the limitation, or erase the delay and laches. 8. Moreover, I am of the view that previously Courts did show lenience and latitude in dealing with matter filed at a belated stage. Thereby considering the delay in challenging the order which are otherwise barred by limitation. It is high time a changed perspective and attitude should be adopted, since the Courts are already overburdened with cases resulting in inordinate delay in disposal of cases. Those days of condonation of dalliance and delay would now be over and in cases where no sufficient and proper reason is assigned for delay, the Court must adopt the stern attitude and refuse relief. That will also help in transmitting a message that the Court will no more be indulgent and parties beware. 9. For the foregoing reasons, the present writ petition filed by the petitioner lacks merit and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.