Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 157 (UTT)

Soni v. State of Uttarakhand

2019-03-05

N.S.DHANIK, RAMESH RANGANATHAN

body2019
JUDGMENT : RAMESH RANGANATHAN, J. 1. This appeal is preferred against the order passed by learned Single Judge in WPSS No.3072 of 2018 dated 08.01.2019. 2. Facts, to the limited extent necessary, are that the petitioner’s father died way back in the year 2004. The petitioner claims that an application was made, soon thereafter, seeking appointment of his elder brother on compassionate grounds; and, since he died in the year 2013, the petitioner made an application on 18.04.2013 seeking compassionate appointment, which stood rejected by the order dated 26.03.2014. The petitioner however, filed the writ petition more than four years thereafter on 30.08.2018. 3. By the order under appeal, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitioner holding that the writ petition was hit by delay and laches; the grievance in the writ petition was regarding appointment on compassionate grounds; and such an application lost its significance, since the family had survived since 02.06.2004, after the death of the bread winner, which was too long a period to consider grant of compassionate appointment. 4. Appointment on compassionate grounds is an exception to the normal mode of appointment to posts in public services or to civil posts under the State Government, and is to be resorted to only to provide immediate succor to the family of the deceased who died in-harness; and, on account of his death, his family is in acute financial distress, and their very survival depends on compassionate appointment being provided to one of the dependant family members of the deceased Government servant. 5. As has been held by the learned Single Judge, in the order under appeal, while, the Government servant had died on 02.06.2004, the jurisdiction of this Court was invoked on 30.08.2014 more than 10 years thereafter, and the very fact that the family of the deceased Government servant had survived for a period of more than 10 years, without being provided compassionate appointment, would show that the family of the deceased was not in such a hapless situation as to justify appointment, of one of the family members of the deceased, on compassionate grounds. 6. The learned Single Judge has also non-suited the petitioner on the ground of unexplained delay and laches of around 4 years from 26.03.2014, when the petitioner’s request for compassionate appointment was rejected, till 30.08.2018 when they invoked the jurisdiction of this Court. 6. The learned Single Judge has also non-suited the petitioner on the ground of unexplained delay and laches of around 4 years from 26.03.2014, when the petitioner’s request for compassionate appointment was rejected, till 30.08.2018 when they invoked the jurisdiction of this Court. Interference in an intra-court appeal would be justified only if the order under appeal suffers from a patent illegality. We find no such infirmity in the said order. We see no reason, therefore, to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge to the extent the appellant-writ petitioner was denied relief. 7. Before parting with the case, it is necessary to take note of yet another submission of Shri I.D. Paliwal, learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner, that, the learned Single Judge had misunderstood his submissions, and had observed that he had made remarks of sarcasm; and that such conduct should be deprecated. Learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner would submit that, in his entire career spanning nearly two decades, he has never given cause for any Judge to comment on his conduct; the observations, in the order under appeal, were made only because the submissions made by him were misunderstood by the learned Single Judge; and he expresses regret for what transpired in Court on that day. 8. In the light of the submissions now made by Shri I.D. Paliwal, learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner, Shri Paresh Tripathi, learned Chief Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand and Shri Lalit Samant, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 to 4, would fairly state that the observations, in the order under appeal, deprecating the petitioner’s conduct may be set aside. 9. Recording the expression of contrition and regret by Shri I.D. Paliwal, learned counsel for the appellant-writ petitioner, the observations made against him in the order under appeal are set aside. The appeal, however, fails and is, accordingly dismissed. No costs.