Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 65699
“C.R.”
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE EASWARAN S.
RD WEDNESDAY, THE 3 DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 14TH CHAITHRA, 1946 WP(C) NO. 2392 OF 2018 PETITIONER:
B. ANANDAN AGED 24 YEARS S/O.R.BALACHANDRAN PILLAI(LATE),KRISHNA BHAVAN, CHUNDAMUGAL, AYOOR P.O.,KOLLAM DISTRICT-691533.
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.C.GOVINDA SWAMY SRI.M.ALFRED LIONEL WINSTON SMT.KALA T.GOPI RESPONDENTS:
1 UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, PARK TOWN P.O., CHENNAI-600003.
2 THE CHIEF SECURITY COMMISSIONER RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, HEADQUARTERS OFFICE, MOORE MARKET COMPLEX,CHENNAI-
600003.
3 THE DIVISIONAL SECURITY COMMISSIONER RAILWAY PROTECTION FORCE, SOUTHERN RAILWAY, TRIVANDRUM DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.
4 THE SENIOR PERSONNEL DIVISIONAL OFFICER SOUTHERN RAILWAY, TRIVANDRUM DIVISION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695014.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.T.V.VINU, CGC SRI.S.CHANDRASENAN, SC, RAILWAYS THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03.04.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
“C.R”
Unexplained delay in filing a writ petition for compassionate appointment under Article 226 can be grounds for dismissal, as it is a discretionary remedy not subject to strict limitation rules.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Compassionate appointment - Delay in approaching court for claim - Delay of 2 years from the order is deemed fatal, given the unexplained nature of the delay and principles governing compassionate appointments - Compassionate appointment not a matter of right but meant for immediate relief to deceased's family - Mother's prior nomination of daughter impacts son's claim. (Paras 1, 9, 12, 13, 14)
(B) Limitation - Discretionary relief - Unexplained delay may result in dismissal of writ petition, evaluated on case specifics - Courts not bound by strict limitation period per se, but exercise discretion judiciously. (Paras 9, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner claims appointment on compassionate grounds based on the death of his father in 2006, while the mother initially nominated the sister, who did not accept the offer. The request for the petitioner came years later, after a significant delay in action.
Findings of Court:
The unexplained delay undermines the petitioner’s claim, and previously nominated claims cannot be reconsidered after many years. Respondents fulfilled their duty by offering the position to the first nominee.
Issues: The court addressed whether delay is fatal to claims for compassionate appointment and the implications of previous nominations.
Ratio Decidendi: Unexplained delay in filing leads to the dismissal of claims in compassionate appointment cases, supported by precedents affirming that the jurisdiction under Article 226 is discretionary and contingent on the timing of the application.
Result: Writ Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Is delay in approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India fatal for successfully pursuing the claim for a compassionate appointment? The answer to the above question lies in intrinsically analyzing the scheme of compassionate appointment qua the claim of the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is the son of one Sri.R.Balachandran Pillai, who was a Constable in Railway Protection Force (RPF). He died on 25.05.2006. An application for compassionate appointment was given by his wife nominating their daughter. The said request was considered and on 11.06.2008, the daughter Kum.Krishna Balachandran Pillai was offered compassionate appointment and she was asked to appear for suitability test. It appears that the daughter of late R.Balachandran Pillai and Valsala did not accept the said offer. Later Smt.Valsala on 10.02.2012, by Ext.P12 requested the authorities to cancel her earlier request and to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner, who is her son. Later, this was reiterated on 08.01.2014. Considering the said request by Ext.P1 order, the authorities have declined the request and taken a stand that the petitioner cannot be considered for compassionate appointment.
3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 4. A preliminary objection is taken with regard to the maintainability of the present Writ Petition on the ground that Ext.P1 order is dated 16.08.2016, whereas the Writ Petition is filed in the year 2018 and, therefore, there is an unexplained delay. It is also contended in the counter affidavit that the mother had changed the request for nominating the son instead of her daughter for compassionate appointment only in the year 2011. According to the respondents, Kum.Krishna Balachandran Pillai given ample opportunities for appointment which was never utilized. Reliance has been placed on the judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court, which govern the field with regard to the appointment on compassionate grounds. Therefore, it is prayed that the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. I have heard Smt.Kala T.Gopi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, and Sri.T.V.Vinu, the learned Central Government Counsel.
5. Multiple questions are required to be addressed by this Court before deciding this lis. The primary question is whether the delay in filing the writ petition is fatal to the cause projected by the petitioner. Secondary question is with regard to the entitlement of the petitioner to claim compassionate appointment on the death of his father Sri. R.Balachandran Pillai.
6. Since the issues are interconnected on facts, the same will be dealt conjointly. The records reveal that the father of the petitioner died on 25.5.2006. On the death of Late Sri.R.Balachandran Pillai, the mother of the petitioner sent a request on 2.11.2006 for compassionate appointment for her daughter, who was then eligible for claiming compassionate appointment. Kum.Krishna, daughter of late R.Balachandran Pillai was offered compassionate appointment. It appears that daughter of late Sri.R.Balachandran Pillai was not inclined to take up the appointment. She had however requested the respondents to give a more suitable posting to her than the one which was offered in the year 2008.
7. In the meantime, that the mother of the petitioner decided to cancel the nomination of her daughter and decided to request the authorities to appoint the petitioner under compassionate grounds. The request was however turned down by the authorities on 16.8.2016.
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per Clause I(x) of Ext.P14 which is the guidelines governing the appointment on compassionate grounds, the petitioner is entitled to claim compassionate appointment on attainment of majority. The clause referred to above specifically provides that a minor son to be appointed will be attaining majority of age within a period of five years of the event of death, which is the basis for
