On February 17, 2025, Patna High Court's division bench of Justices Ashutosh Kumar and Partha Sarthy observed that the delay has caused extinguishment of the claim of the appellant in Niraj Kumar Upadhyay vs. Registrar General, Patna High Court and Registrar Establishment, Patna High Court (2025) Letters Patent Appeal No.1209 of 2023. Endorsing the decision of Justice Madhuresh Prasad, the division bench concluded: "There is no merit in this appeal and the same is thus dismissed."
The appellant had questioned the judgment dated July 12, 2023 passed by Justice Prasad in Niraj Kumar Upadhyay vs. The Registrar General (2023) CWJC No. 13673 of 2019, whereby the claim of the appellant for being considered for compassionate appointment was rejected. The division bench noted that it is apparent from the records that "the father of the appellant was a Driver employed in Patna High Court who died in harness. The elder brother of the appellant is also an employee of the Patna High Court. The mother of the appellant kept on representing for appointment of the appellant on compassionate ground, which was rejected thrice; the first time in the year 2014."
The appellant contended that except for one order of rejection of the plea of appointment on compassionate ground in the year 2019, all other orders were non-speaking. The appellant was represented by Advocate Mohammad Abu Shajar.
The division bench recorded that Justice Prasad had found that "the petition was absolutely belated and against the principle behind granting compassionate appointment to family members of the deceased employees, viz., to provide them immediate succour, rejected the claim of the appellant. The fact that one of the brothers of the appellant also is employed in Patna High Court further convinces us that the claim of the appellant to be appointed on compassionate ground, which is at best a back door appointment, is untenable. The delay has further caused extinguishment of the claim of the appellant."
This case from Muzaffarpur was originally filed on June 28, 2019 and registered on July 5, 2019 by Advocate Anshul. Notably, the first order in the case was passed by Justice Ashutosh Kumar on July 9, 2019.
Subsequently, Justice Madhuresh Prasad heard the case and passed his final order on July 12, 2023 after hearing the counsels. His order reads: "The petitioner is son of a driver, who passed away on 20-05-2012, while in service of the respondent- Patna High Court. It appears from the writ petition that his elder brother was also employed in the establishment of the respondent- Patna High Court. The petitioner’s mother applied for petitioner’s appointment on compassionate ground, which was rejected. The petitioner’s mother sought reconsideration of the claim. The respondent- Patna High Court rejected the claim for reconsideration under letter dated 11.02.2014 (Annexure-8). The petitioner’s mother, however, again applied for compassionate appointment after coming into force of the “scheme for appointment on compassionate ground in Patna High Court, 2015”. The same was also rejected under communication dated 07.12.2016 bearing memo no. 80035 (Annexure-11). There is yet a third rejection on record. The same is dated 18.02.2017 bearing Memo No. 11172-75 (Annexure-12). The petitioner’s mother, however, continued to make applications even thereafter. There are, thus, two more rejections on record, dated 04.09.2018 bearing Memo No. 65979 and 16.01.2019 bearing Memo No. 4355, Annexures 15 and 17 respectively to the writ petition. All the rejections have been assailed by way of these writ proceedings filed in 2019. The petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant proceedings more than 07 years after his father died in harness. The Court finds that the present writ application is not only belated, but also suffers from latches. Even after the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment was rejected as early as on 11.02.2014, he has not assailed the same. His mother has repeatably approached the authorities for the same relief at least 06 times, as per pleadings in the writ petition, all of which have been rejected. It is, thus, clearly a case of delay and latches."
The counsel for the respondent-Patna High Court relied upon decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and others vs. Nirval Singh reported in (2019)6 SCC 774. He placed specific reliance on paragraph No. 8 of the judgment. It is apparent from the same, that in the said case also, the petitioner had approached this Court with his claim for compassionate appointment after period of seven years. The Court, in these facts and circumstances, was of the view that the very objective of providing immediate amelioration to family is extinguished.
Justice Prasad concluded: "In view of the settled legal position, which clearly covers the facts and circumstances of the instant case, this Court is of the view that the writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is rejected."
No comments:
Post a Comment