ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 27-02-2024

1. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the decision taken by the District Compassionate Appointment Committee, Buxar on 05.05.1994, as contained in memo dated 17.05.1994, whereby and whereunder the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected. The petitioner has further prayed for directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground.

2. The brief facts of the case, according to the petitioner are that his father died in harness on 31.12.1988, while posted as Tubewell Operator at Tubewell Division, Buxar, Department of Minor Irrigation, Government of Bihar, Patna, whereafter the petitioner had filed an application for grant of compassionate employment, which was placed before the District Compassionate Committee, however, the same was rejected vide minutes of meeting dated 05.05.1994 on the ground that the petitioner was minor at the time of death of his father. The petitioner had then filed a review application on 23.07.2001, before the District Collector and the Executive Engineer, however, to no avail. The petitioner had in the meantime passed Matriculation Examination and the Intermediate Examination, hence had again filed an application on 03.03.2004, for appointment on compassionate ground before the District Magistrate and the Executive Engineer. The petitioner had also filed an application for compassionate employment on 05.12.2007, however, to no avail. Thus, it is submitted that a sympathetic view be taken and the respondents be directed to provide compassionate employment to the petitioner.

3. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Respondent-

State has raised a preliminary objection with regard to the maintainability of the present writ petition, inasmuch as the present writ petition has been filed belatedly, after a great delay of about 36 years. The learned counsel for the Respondent-State has submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court, in a catena of judgments, has held that while exercising extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Constitutional Court, while protecting the rights of citizens, should simultaneously keep itself alive to primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the Court belatedly, at his own leisure or pleasure, the writ Court is not required to grant any indulgence to such indolent person and on the ground of delay and laches alone, the writ Court ought to throw the petition overboard at the very threshold. In this regard, the learned counsel for the Respondent-State has referred to the following judgments:-

“(i). Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply & Sewerage Board & Others vs. T.T.Murali Babu, reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108.

(ii). State of Uttranchal & Anr. vs. Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari & Ors., reported in 2013 AIR SCW 6627.

(iii). C. Jacob vs. Director of Geology & Mining & Anr., reported in AIR 2009 SC 264.

(iv). State of Jammu & Kashmir vs. R.K. Zalpuri & Others, reported in AIR 2016 SC

3006.

(v). State of Tamil Nadu vs. Seshachalam, reported in (2007) 10 SCC 137.

4. The learned counsel for the respondents has further submitted that after the father of the petitioner died in harness on 30.12.1988, all his death-cum-retiral benefits were paid to the petitioner inasmuch as the mother of the petitioner had already pre-deceased his father. It is also submitted that at the time of death of his father, the petitioner was a minor and after attaining majority, he had filed an application for appointment on compassionate ground on 24.01.1994, whereafter his application was forwarded to the District Compassionate Appointment Committee, Buxar, which had examined the claim of the petitioner in its meeting held on 05.05.1994, however, it found that the claim of the petitioner cannot be entertained in view of the circular issued by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna, vide letter n