Service Law: Compassionate appointment – Delay and laches in case of appointment on compassionate ground – Deceased employee died in the year 1977 – Application for compassionate appointment by eldest son was rejected – Despite that after a period of 18 years of the date of the death of the deceased employee, application by widow of the deceased employee to appoint her second son on compassionate ground – Tribunal directed the appellant to re-consider the case and to appoint the second son on compassionate ground, which order was confirmed by the High Court by impugned judgment – Appeal by employer – Held: It was held in *Sajad Ahmed Mir that once it is proved that inspite of the death of the bread winner, the family survived and substantial period is over, there is no need to make appointment on compassionate ground – Applying the law laid down in *Sajad Ahmed Mir, the second son of respondent is not entitled to appointment on compassionate ground – Delay and laches.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. Apart from the fact that in the impugned judgment and order, the Division Bench has not at all given any specific independent findings, it can be seen that except narrating the submissions on behalf of the respective parties, there is no further discussion at all on merits and there is no discussion at all on delay and laches. Even otherwise, on merits also, the respondent shall not be entitled to appointment on compassionate ground on the ground of delay and laches. [Para 5.1][40-A-B]
2. In the present case, the second application was made after a period of 18 years, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court and that of the Central Administrative Tribunal directing the appellant to re-consider the case of the second son of the respondent is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside and accordingly the same are hereby quashed and set aside. [Para 6][40-G-H]
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited and Ors. v. Nirval Singh, (2019) 6 SCC 774 : [2019] 7 SCR 905; *State of J & K and Ors. v. Sajad Ahmed Mir (2006) 5 SCC 766 : [2006] 3 Suppl. SCR 576 – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.