SPA/241/2019 of BALWANT KUMAR Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITALSpecial Appeal No.241 of 2019With CLMA No.3842/2019 (Stay Application)

CLMA No.3843 of 2019 (Delay Condonation Application in Time Barred SPA)

Balwant Kumar

…….… Appellant

Versus

State of Uttarakhand & others

…..…Respondents

Present:

Mr. Prabhakar Joshi, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Paresh Tripathi, Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

Coram: Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.Hon’ble Narayan Singh Dhanik, J.

Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral)

This Special Appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging the judgment and order dated 11.01.2019 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition (S/S) No.141 of 2019.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the father of the appellant who was “Moharir” passed away in the year 1993 while the appellant was of only nine months. Thereafter, the mother of the appellant remarried. The appellant was brought up by his maternal grandfather. After attaining the age of majority in the year 2012, the appellant moved an application before the respondents for appointment on compassionate ground under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. This application remained pending and no decision was taken on this application. Aggrieved, the appellant filed writ petition being WPSS No.141 of 2019 before this Court where he prayed for writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to provide him compassionate appointment under the U.P.

Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. The writ petition of the petitioner (appellant herein) was dismissed by learned Single Judge of this Court vide order dated 11.01.2019 on ground that the appellant had approached the Court at highly belated stage. While dismissing the writ petition of the petitioner (appellant herein), learned Single Judge has also relied upon judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Manipur vs. Mohammad Rajaodin, reported in (2003) 7 SCC 511,wherein it has been held that merely the dependent was minor at the time of death would not entitle him for being provided with compassionate appointment at belated stage on attainment of his majority as consideration of the said claim at belated stage would run contrary to the very spirit and purpose for the compassionate appointment. Aggrieved, the appellant has filed the present special appeal before this Court. 3. Compassionate appointments are being made so that the family is able to cope up the misfortune and sudden hardship which has befallen upon the family. We are in full agreement with the findings of the learned Single Judge in order dated 11.01.2019. There is no ground for our interference in the matter. The special appeal fails and it is hereby dismissed.

4. Since we have already dismissed the special appeal of the appellant, we are not passing any order on the delay condonation application, although the appeal itself is belated.

(Narayan Singh Dhanik, J.) 15.04.2019

(Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 15.04.2019

Ankit/