2012 (3) SCC 311
Supreme Court of India
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE H.L. DATTU & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL R. DAVE
Ashok Kumar
Versus
District Magistrate, Basti & Another
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1651-1652 OF 2012 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(C)NOS.
20834-20835 OF 2007)
Decided on : 07-02-2012
(b) Constitution of India – Article 226 – Maintainability – Delay and laches – Appealed filed after a delay of one year and 178 days giving reasons of mother’s illness etc. but not producing any supporting document – Dismissal of appeal on ground of delay and laches – No infirmity. (Para 13)
Facts of the case:
The appellant claimed appointment on compassionate ground after death of his father. The authorities held that appellant’s father died after retirement and therefore he was not entitled to appointment on compassionate ground.
Writ court upheld the order.
Appeal, filed after inordinate delay, was dismissed upholding the Writ Court’s judgment and on ground of delay and laches.
Finding of the Court:
There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment.
Result: Appeals dismissed.
Judgment :
1. Leave granted.
2. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 12.2.2007 in C.M. Delay Condonation Application No.33025 of 2007 in Special Appeal No.123 of 2007 and order dated 12.2.2007 passed in Special Appeal No.123 of 2007. By the impugned judgment, the High Court has affirmed the view taken by the learned Single Judge in his order dated 14.07.2005, wherein he dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the appellant.
3. The facts, in nutshell, are :
The appellant, before us, is the elder son of the deceased employee, who died in harness, according to the appellant. Immediately, thereafter the appellant had filed an application dated 16.06.2001 before the District Magistrate, Basti for his appointment on compassionate grounds. The request so made was not considered by the said authority, in spite of long lapse of time. This prompted the appellant to approach the High Court for a Writ in the nature of Mandamus. The High Court, vide order dated 09.11.2001, taking into consideration that the authority, who was supposed to exercise its jurisdiction, had not done within a reasonable time and had directed the District Magistrate to consider the representation filed by the appellant within a period of three months.
4. Pursuant to the direction so issued by the High Court, while disposing of the Writ Petition, the District Magistrate, Basti has passed an order dated 15.02.2002, inter alia, holding that the appellant's father had expired after he retired from service, on attaining the age of superannuation and therefore, the appellant cannot seek for compassionate appointment. This order again became a subject matter of a Writ Petition.
5. The learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the date on which the appellant's father retired from service and the date on which he expired, has come to a conclusion that the death of the appellant's father occurred only after he had retired from service, after attaining the age of superannuation. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition vide his order dated 14.07.2005.
6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the learned Single Judge, the appellant had filed an appeal before the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in Special Appeal No.123 of 2007. However, there was an unexplained delay of one year and 178 days in filing the appeal. The only explanation that was offered by the appellant was that his mother was suffering from illness, therefore, he could not approach the High Court within the stipulated time. In support of the said application, the appellant had not produced any documentary evidence, such as medical certificate towards the illness of his mother.
7. The Division Bench vide its order dated 12.02.2007 after taking into consideration the inordinate unexplained delay and also that the appellant's father had retired from service, after attaining the age of superannuation, has rejected the appeal both on the ground of limitation as well as on merits. The correctness or otherwise of the said order is the subject matter of these appeals.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties to the lis.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant's father, since he was a government employee, ought to have been retired only at the age of 60 and, therefore, would submit that when the appellant's father died, he is deemed to be in service. It is further stated by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant, in the appeal filed before the Division Bench of the High Court, had categorically stated that he could not approach the High Court within the time limit prescribed due to the illness of the appellant's mother and, therefore, the High Court ought to have condoned the delay in filing the appeal.
10. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the District Magistrate, Basti would submit that the explanation, offer
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.