Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 401 (JHR)

Padmawati Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2012-03-20

APARESH KUMAR SINGH, PRAKASH TATIA

body2012
Order LA. No. 3246 of 2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner on application for condonation of delay. 2. The appeal has been preferred after a delay of 8 days. 3. In view of the reasons stated in the application, I.A. No. 3246 of 2011 is allowed and the delay is condoned. L.P.A. No. 375 of 2011 4. The petitioner's husband was an employee of the respondent since 1978. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner this writ petition was filed in the year 2011 after the death of the employee on 20.5.2002 i.e. after nine years from the time of death of the husband of the petitioner. 5. In this writ petition, it has been prayed that the petitioner's husband's service may be regularised and since the petitioner's husband has expired, therefore, she may be given compassionate appointment. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the year 1999 the another matter came before this Court and ultimately reached upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.(Civil) No. 18154 of 1999, which was decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 30.10.2000 and the wife of the deceased employee in the year 2011 wants to take benefit of that order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in another matter, about eleven years ago. 7. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner even the respondent took a policy decision in the years 1985 and 1989 to regularise the services of the employee like petitioner. However, there were cut off dates in those circulars but the representation of the petitioner was not considered nor it was rejected and remained pending with the respondent, therefore, in view of the above, the petitioner's husband's claim, which has been raised by the petitioner's husband, is not a stale claim. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even in the year 2004 some appointments were given on the basis of the directions issued by the High Court in other writ petitions which was given by following the order passed in S.L.P.(Civil) No. 18154 of 1999. 9. Learned Single Judge has considered all these aspects of the matter and, thereafter dismissed the writ petition of the petitioner, hence this L.P.A. 10. 9. Learned Single Judge has considered all these aspects of the matter and, thereafter dismissed the writ petition of the petitioner, hence this L.P.A. 10. We are also of the considered opinion that in a matter of appointment of the year 1978 till 2002 if the petitioner's husband only moved representations and if those representations have not been considered and petitioner's husband did not raise any grievance for not deciding the' representations and did not approach this Court by filing the writ petition for decades, the petitioner cannot be in a better position than her husband. Not only this the petitioner's husband expired on 20.5.2002 and the present L.PA has been filed in the year 2011 and that too by relying upon the order passed in S.L.P.(Civil) No. 18154 of 1999, which was decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the year 2000. Therefore, from date of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, writ petition has been filed after 11 years. 11. In these facts and circumstances, the writ petition is nothing but abuse of the process of the Court. The claim of the petitioner that she may be given compassionate appointment and that too in such situation, the facts of which also indicate that the petitioner was also not very much intersted in getting compassionate appointment as after 20.5.2002 she filed the writ petition in the year 2011. 12. So far as the retiral dues of the deceased employee is concerned that too is also only a stale claim for which at this belated stage no order can .be passed and therefore, the learned Single Judge was right in passing the order. 13. In view of the above reasons, we do not find any merit in this L.P.A. Hence this L.PA is dismissed.