Full Judgment
W.P.350 OF 201.IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Original Side PRASENJIT DAS Versus COAL INDIA LTD.& ORS.Petitioner Respondents BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE DR.
SAMBUDDHA CHAKRABARTI Date :
28. h August, 2012.
For the Petitioner : Mr.Partha Chakraborty, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr.K.Mondal, Advocate THE COURT : This Writ petition is directed against the alleged non-consideration of representation made by the petitioner for his employment on compassionate ground after the death of his father who was an employee under the respondent No.1.
The father of the petitioner died in the year 1994.
The petitioner was then a minot and, according to him, he had crossed 15 yeaRs.The application employment mother in for of the year her son the petitioner 1995 when he had filed seeking an would attain an alternative majority.
According to his mother as also the case of the petitioner, he had attained majority in July, 1997.
The application petitioner, however, within the period did of five not file years after any he attained majority.
The fiRs.such application was dated July 10, 2002 which is annexed to the writ petition as Annexure P-2.
There is, however, an undated application which has also been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure P-3.
Mr.Chakraborty, the learned advocate for the petitioner also could not throw any light on the date of this application.
It is thus not clear when this application was filed.
This is all the more so because the application does not bear any stamp of receipt by the concerned respondents.
By a communication respondent No.4 was not dated July 14, 2007, the herein had intimated the petitioner that he entitled to either monetary compensation or dependent employment as monetary compensation was paid only to the female dependent and as the petitioner was below 18 years at entitled the to time of death dependent of his employment.
father, The he was respondent not No.4 further referred to an observation made in a judgment of the High Court appointment in after which a it lapse was of held that reasonable compassionate time is not permissible.
That was in the year 2007 and we did not have any evidence that the petitioner moved the respondents before December 2011 when on his behalf a lawyer’s notice was served upon the respondents Nos.2 and 3.
In this notice, legal action was threatened.
This was obviously in contemplation of legal proceedings.
This will be evident from the letter itself and ultimately the petitioner has filed this writ petition in April 2012.
Thus, there was a delay at every stage on behalf of the writ petitioner after attaining majority.
It had taken five years for the petitioner to approach the authorities for a dependent employment.
The authorities had turned down his request in the year 2007 and he filed this writ petition after a lapse of about 5 yeaRs.Mr.Chakraborty, the learned advocate for the petitioner tried to justify the conduct of the petitioner that he had in the meantime made several representations to the authorities.
However, he could not show a single representation except the lawyer’s notice which was served only a few months before the writ petition was filed.
The petitioner must have to demonstrate his promptitude and must not waste any time as the effect of delay may be fatal to the writ petitioner.
Here there has been an unexplained delay of a considerable period and the petition this.
is without any explanation about ground alone, the writ petition is liable On this to be dismissed.
That apart, it is not a settled principle of law that the whole purpose of offering compassionate appointment being to help a family to tide financial crisis caused by the over the sudden immediate death of a bread earner of the family, it cannot be considered after a lapse of a considerable period of time.
After all, this is not a source of recruitment but must be deemed to be an exception to the general rule that recruitment should be on the basis of merit.
This position of law has been settled by a series of successive judgments of the Supreme Court and different High Courts.
Reference may, however, be made to a more recent decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India versus Raj Kumar, reported in (2010) 11 SCC 661.wherein the principle of Supreme law Court after very clearly had recording laid the down above that the dependents of employees, who die in harness do not have any special claim or right to employment, except by way of concession that may be extended by the employer under the rules or by a separate scheme, to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis.
Again, in the case of Jagdish Prasad versus State of Bihar and Anr.
rEported in 1996(1) LLJ 1105.the Supreme Court has held that the very object of appointment of a dependent of the deceased employee who died in harness is to relieve hardship and distress caused to the family by sudden demise of the earning member of the family.
Repelling the contention that the appellant in that case was a minot at the time of his father’s death and, therefore, he was entitled to be appointed after he had attained his majority, the Supreme accepted Court it had that if such another amounts held contention mode of recruitment of is the dependent of a deceased employee which cannot be encouraged dehors the employment rules.
In the present case, the petitioner’s father died in the year 1994 and on the strength of the more recent trend of judicial ratiocination, the respondents cannot be directed to petitioner contrary offer after to the compassionate a compassionate long 18 whole yeaRs.purpose appointment and appointment That of that will having will be a make to running scheme the the of scheme virtually meaningless.
The learned advocate for the respondents submits that the under petitioner’s mother had already been in employment the respondent No.1 from before the death of her husband and that is why he could afford not to file the application before.
Be that as it may, in the absence of any explanation whatsoever about the reasons for not either making the application for compassionate appointment before the expiry of 5 years after he had attained his majority or for approaching the Court after a lapse of about 5 yeaRs.the petitioner cannot be held to be entitled to compassionate appointment in terms of the relevant National Coal Wage Agreement.
The Writ petition is without any merit and has also been belatedly filed without any explanation and is, thus, liable to be dismissed on both the counts.
The writ petition is, thus, dismissed.
Since the writ petition has been dismissed without calling for any affidavit, the allegations contained therein are deemed not to have been admitted by the respondents.
There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
Photostat available to the certified parties copy upon of this order compliance be of made usual formalities.
(DR.
SAMBUDDHA CHAKRABARTI, J.) Rs.AR(CR)