D.N. Patel, J.

I.A. No. 6126 of 2017

1. Present interlocutory application has been preferred under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condonation of delay of 169 days in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal.

2. Having heard counsels for both sides and looking to the reasons stated in the interlocutory application, especially in paragraph Nos. 18 to 22, it appears that there are reasonable grounds for condonation of delay.

3. In view of these facts, we, hereby, condone the delay in preferring this Letters Patent Appeal. Accordingly, I.A. No. 6126 of 2017 is allowed and disposed of.

L.P.A. No. 411 of 2017

4. When this matter was called out counsel for the appellant remained absent.

5. We have heard counsel appearing for the Central Coal Fields Limited.

6. This appellant is the original petitioner, who has filed W.P.(S) No. 3046 of 2016 praying for compassionate appointment because of death of his brother, an employee of Respondent No.1, who expired on 2nd December, 1993. This prayer was not accepted by the learned Single Judge and hence, original petitioner has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal.

7. Having heard counsel appearing for the respondent and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that brother of this appellant has expired on 2nd December, 1993. Thereafter, this appellant has preferred an application for compassionate appointment on 9th December, 2000, which was ultimately rejected by Respondent No. 1 on 8th April, 2016 and thereafter, the writ petition has been preferred in the year 2016.

8. Thus, it appears that the application for compassionate appointment was preferred at a much later stage, i.e. after seven years after the death of his brother. Name of the appellant could not be inserted in the live-roster because he was aged about 10 years at that time and after rejection of his application in the year 2016, writ petition was preferred in the year 2016. Thus, there is gross delay in preferring the application for compassionate appointment by this appellant and in preferring the writ petition also.

9. It ought to be kept in mind that compassionate appointment is not an alternative mode of getting employment. In fact, public employment can be given only after public advertisement inviting applications from the public at large. Compassionate appointment is an exception to this rule with a view to extend immediate financial support to the family of the deceased employee. At a much belated stage no compassionate appointment can be given. In the facts of the present case, the brother has expired way back in the year 1993 and therefore, this appellant cannot be given employment after 25 long years.

10. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and others, reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138 in paragraphs 2 to 6, which read as under:

“2. The question relates to the considerations which should guide while giving appointment in public services on compassionate ground. It appears that there has been a good deal of obfuscation on the issue. As a rule, appointments in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. Neither the Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules for the post. However, to this general rule which is to be followed strictly in every case, there are some exceptions carved out in the interests of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependants of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules