JUDGMENT :

Lapita Banerji, J.

The petitioner’s father died in harness on August 28, 1996. Within 2 years, the petitioner made an application for compassionate appointment on May 15, 1998. The said prayer was processed and the petitioner was asked to produce few documents for compassionate appointment on August 2/3, 2004. On December 27, 2004, the petitioner was called for initial medical examination. It was held by the Medical Officer of the Eastern Coalfields Limited (ECL) that the audiometry test for the petitioner was within the normal limits. The petitioner was directed to appear before the Screening Committee for monetary compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment on February 25, 2005. Thereafter, the petitioner was neither given compassionate appointment nor was given monetary compensation.

2. The present writ petition was filed in 2021. The Hon’ble Coordinate Bench directed the age of the petitioner to be ascertained by way of an ossification test to be conducted by a Medical Board constituted by the Medical Superintendent – cum – Vice-Principal, Burdwan Medical College and Hospital since there was a huge discrepancy in the age of the petitioner based on records. In 2021 the petitioner declared her age to be 34 years but a simple arithmetical calculation from 1998 (when she applied for compassionate appointment being not less than 18 years) till 2022 indicated that she was around 42 years. The medical report from the Burdwan Medical College determined the age of the petitioner to be 42 years in 2022.

3. The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of ECL, urged the point of maintainability and submitted that the claim of the petitioner is barred by delay, acquiescence and laches and therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable. He placed various Judgments on the issue of delay, acquiescence and laches by way of a compilation and the said Judgments/Orders merit a detailed consideration.

4a) AIR 1995 SC 1991 (State of Maharashtra Vs. Digambar) has been cited for the proposition that laches/undue delay disentitles the writ petitioner from discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

b) In that case, there was an acute scarcity in 23,000 villages of the State of Maharashtra in 1971-72. Large scale scarcity relief works were undertaken by the State Government to provide employment to agricultural labour/small agriculturists for earning their livelihood. The Collectors and other social workers were instructed to impress upon people to donate their land to the Government without claim for any compensation, as the Government was not in a position to divert the relief funds for payment of compensation funds.

c) In 1991, the writ petitioner filed a petition before the Bombay High Court against the State of Maharashtra for grant of compensation for his land, since it was not utilized with his consent. In such a case, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that the conduct of the writ petitioner will disentitle him to get equitable relief because it is blameworthy due to laches, undue delay, acquiescence and waiver. The writ petitioner therein did not make any attempt to explain his blameworthy conduct. Therefore, the writ petition and the appeal was dismissed.

d) The case of Digambar(Supra) is completely distinguishable on facts and can have no relevance to a case where the petitioner made an application on compassionate ground within 2 years from the date of death of her father/deceased employee. Here, she was called for initial medical examination and also offered Monthly Monetary Cash Compensation “(MMCC)” in lieu of Compassionate Appointment. Thereafter, the respondent/ECL chose neither to give Compassionate Appointment nor “MMCC” that the petitioner was entitled to. The conduct of ECL was harassive to say the least and ECL should not be permitted to take advantage of its own wrong.

e) How the facts of the present case can be equated with the facts of Digambar (Supra) where the petitioner had no entitlement to compen