Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
The present application has been filed by the widow of the original applicant, namely, Pankaj Kumar who was the eldest son of the deceased
employee Shri Badri Narayan Singh who died in harness on 03.03.2006.
The application for compassionate appointment was made by the husband of the present petitioner on 07.04.2006 and while his application remained
pending, the husband of the present petitioner, namely, Pankaj Kumar also died on 25.02.2013. It appears from the records of the case that during the
lifetime of the husband of the present petitioner, the second son of the deceased employee filed a petition for compassionate appointment, but the
same was rejected on account of the filing of some false certificates. The present petitioner has, however, filed her application only after the death of
her late husband on 13.10.2014 for appointment on compassion ground in lieu of her late husband who was the son of the employee who died in
harness.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, has been unable to explain as to what necessary steps were taken by her late husband between the year
2006 to 2013 when his application remained pending and as to whether any applications were filed by him in the interregnum before the appropriate
authority for consideration of his case for compassionate appointment.
It appears that the second brother in view of his illness had also applied whose case was rejected.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the application by the second brother was without consent from the present applicant or her late
husband and, therefore, such rejection need not be taken note off. He, thus, submits that it is now open to the authorities to take adequate steps for
consideration of the case of the petitioner.
This Court fails to appreciate as to how the appointment on compassionate ground can now be made in favour of the daughter-in-law of the late
employee who died in harness in the year 2006. There is considerable delay and laches which stand unexplained and a period of 14 years has already
lapsed.
In view of such facts and circumstances, it is not open for this Court to interfere in the matter. The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed.
