Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 380 (UTT)

Kanti Devi v. State of Uttarakhand

2022-12-07

R.C.KHULBE, VIPIN SANGHI

body2022
JUDGMENT Vipin Sanghi, CJ. - Delay Condonation Application No. 01 of 2022. Counsel for the respondents fairly does not oppose the application seeking condonation of delay of 109 days in filing the present appeal. We, accordingly, condone the delay, and allow the application. 2. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 30.07.2021, passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition preferred by the appellant, being Writ Petition (S/S) No. 927 of 2021. 3. The appellant had preferred the said writ petition to seek a direction to the respondents to grant her compassionate appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules. The case of the appellant was that her mother was serving the respondent. The mother of the appellant died in harness on 02.01.2012. She applied to seek compassionate appointment. It is a matter of record that on 16.05.2013, a resolution was passed by the respondent Nagar Palika Parishad to consider the appellant's case for grant of compassionate appointment. The appellant thereafter took no steps whatsoever. She represented on 13.11.2019. Thereafter, she preferred the aforesaid writ petition in the year 2021. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches on the part of the appellant in approaching the Court. 4. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the appellant made the representation in the year 2019, when vacancy arose, against which she could be granted compassionate appointment. 5. We are not satisfied with this explanation. It is well settled that compassionate appointments are granted to provide immediate financial relief and succor to the bereaved family, which suffer financial hardship on account of demise of an earning member of the family. Such appointments cannot be claimed as a matter of right, and are not considered as a source of regular recruitment. The mere fact that the appellant did nothing even after the passing of the resolution dated 16.05.2013, and represented only in November 2019, and thereafter preferred the writ petition in the year 2021, shows that there was no grave urgency or need for grant of compassionate appointment to the appellant. The urgency and need, if any, had faded away with passage of time. 6. We are, therefore, not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.