The court affirmed that delay in seeking relief and failure to meet the definition of dependants under the bipartite agreement justified the dismissal of the writ petition.

JUDGMENT :

1. In this appeal the judgement and order dated 01.12.2023 as passed in WPA 6043 of 2022 by the learned Single Bench of this Court is impugned. By the said order and judgement the learned Single Bench dismissed the said writ petition. The writ petitioners felt aggrieved and thus preferred the instant appeal.

2. For effective adjudication of the instant appeal the facts leading to filing of WPA 6043 of 2022 are required to be discussed in a nutshell and those are as follows:-

i. One Habu Muchi was an employee under the respondent no.2/ company.

ii. The said Habu Muchi died in harness on 24.01.1996.

iii. The appellant no.1/writ petitioner no.1 is admittedly the daughter of the said Habu Muchi from his second wife.

iv. The marriage between the appellant no.1/writ petitioner no. 1 and the appellant no.2/writ petitioner no.2 was solemnized on 17.01.1996 i.e. seven days prior to the death of Habu Muchi.

v. The appellant no.2/writ petitioner no.2, the son-in-law of the deceased Habu Muchi approached this Court by filing WP no. 8901 (W) of 2012 with a prayer for issuance of appropriate writ upon the respondents/authorities herein for providing him an employment under die-in-harness scheme.

vi. By an order dated 11.09.2012 WP no. 8901(W) of 2012 was disposed of by a Single Bench of this Court directing the respondent/authorities herein to consider the said writ petition as a representation of the appellant no.2 herein and to pass a reasoned order thereon.

vii. By a reasoned order dated 12.11.2012 the respondent/authorities however rejected such representation of the appellant no.2.

viii. On 06.01.2021 the appellant no.1 being the daughter of the said Habu Muchi submitted a fresh representation to the respondent no.3 herein.

ix. Since such representation was not considered by the respondents, the present appellants on 17.03.2022 filed WPA no.6043 of 2022 with a prayer for issuance of Writ of Mandamus upon the respondent/authorities to give appointment either to the writ petitioner no.1 or to the writ petitioner no.2 in die-in-harness scheme alternately; for disbursement of monthly monetary compensation (hereinafter referred to as ‘the MMC’ in short) in lieu of employment from the date of death of the said Habu Muchi.

x. On 01.12.2023, WPA 6043 of 2022 was dismissed by the Ld. Single Judge of this Court.

3. In course his submission Mr. Bhattacharjee, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellants draws attention of this Court to the order and judgement which is impugned in the instant appeal. It is submitted that the Single Bench is not at all justified in rejecting the writ petition of the present appellants merely on the ground of delay.

4. In course of his submission Mr. Bhattacharjee draws our attention to page no.32 as well as to page no.70 of the paper book being the copies of the report and the additional report as submitted on behalf of the respondent/authorities. Attention of ours is also drawn to the orders dated 24.08.2022, 02.08.2023 and 03.10.2023 as passed in connection with WPA 6043 of 2022. It is submitted by Mr. Bhattacharjee that from the order dated 02.05.2023 as passed in WPA 6043 of 2022 it would reveal that a Single Bench of this Court even after perusing the first report of the respondents/authorities as affirmed on 08.08.2022 further directed the respondents/authorities to conduct a screening test and enquiry with regard to the dependency of the appellant no.1 upon her father Habu Muchi. It is submitted that pursuant to such direction as passed on 02.05.2023 the respondents/authorities filed an additional report which was affirmed