JUDGMENT

(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.S.SANJAY GOWDA)

[1] On 07.06.2006, the father of the appellant who was working in the school, passed away, and within a month, i.e., on 27.06.2006, the appellant made an application for appointment on compassionate grounds.

[2] The school, in response, informed the appellant that there was no adequate student strength to employ him, and in the event the authorities approved the appointment, they would consider appointing him. Consequently, the appellant approached the authorities, who directed the school to forward the application. In the meantime, the appellant also filed a regular suit, being Civil Suit No.235/2009 seeking a mandatory injunction directing the respondents to appoint him on compassionate grounds. In the said suit, it appears that a statement was made by the educational authorities that if the school were to forward the application, the same would be considered. Accordingly, the suit was withdrawn.

[3] On 10.02.2010, the educational authorities directed the school to forward the application, and only thereafter did the school forward the same. Documents were also sought from the appellant. Since no final decision was taken in the matter, the appellant approached this Court by filing a writ petition, being Special Civil Application No.11505 of 2014. On 02.09.2016, the said petition was disposed of with a direction to the authorities to consider the case of the appellant within four months.

[4] Pursuant to the said order, the authorities rejected the claim of the appellant on the ground that the new Government Resolution dated 05.07.2011 did not entitle the appellant to compassionate appointment, and he was only entitled to lump-sum compensation. Being aggrieved by the said rejection, the appellant approached this Court once again, and the learned Single Judge, by the impugned order, dismissed the writ petition and, consequently, the present appeal.

[5] From the above facts, it is clear that on the death of the appellant’s father, the appellant had promptly made an application; however, no decision on this application was taken until he filed a suit in the year 2009. Even after the filing of the suit, despite the appellant having made an application, no action was taken to consider the same, and the appellant was constrained to file a writ petition being Special Civil Application No.11505 of 2014. This would indicate that the appellant, immediately on the death of his father, made a claim and also pursued the same by initiating one litigation after another.

[6] During this passage of time, there was also a change in the earlier policy of offering compassionate appointment being being replaced by a policy under which the Government had decided to offer only lump-sum compensation instead of compassionate appointment. It is borne out from the record that such an offer was made to the appellant to accept lump-sum compensation.

[7] Ms. Shruti Dhruve, learned Assistant Government Pleader states that as a matter of fact, during the pendency of the appeal and at the instance of this Court, a fresh order was directed to be obtained from the Government for payment of the said amount. The State has also obtained the the necessary concurrence for payment of lump-sum compensation of Rs.5 lakhs; however, the appellant refused the same and insisted that his case be considered only for appointment.

[8] It is to be noticed here that the father of the appellant passed away in the year 2006, and we are now in 2026. In other words, a period of 20 years has elapsed, and at this length of time, issuing a direction to the authorities to consider the case of the appellant for appointment would be improper.

[9] Having regard to the further fact that the State has volunteered to pay a sum of Rs.5 lakhs, in our view, the ends of justice would be subserved if the appellant is directed to receive the said sum of Rs.5 lakhs.

[1