Chandrika Prasad vs M/s. Central Coalfields Limited and Others

I.A. No. 571 of 2012

Heard learned counsel for the appellant on the application filed u/s 5 of the Limitation Act.

In view of the reasons given in the application foreordination of delay, the delay of 2 days in filing the L.P.A. is condoned.

I.A. No. 571 of 2012 stands disposed of.

L.P.A. No. 357 of 2011

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents on merits of the case.

The appellant is seeking compassionate appointment against the death of his father which took place on 30th March,1997.

The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the order of refusal of such appointment was communicated to the writ petitioner in the year 2002, therefore, writ petitioner preferred writ petition in the year 2003 and evenprayed for direction against the respondents to produce the order by which his prayer for compassionate appointment was rejected. It is submitted that delay cannot be fatal in view of the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohan Mahto Vs. Central Coalfields Limited reported in 2007 (4) JLJR 144(SC) and which judgement is against the same respondent before this Court.

We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and we are of the considered opinion that the cause of action to any person seeking compassionate appointment is from the date of death and not from the date of rejection of the claim of appointment. In a situation where the applicant himself did not try to seek any relief through court of law which he could have sought in no time, the lame excuse that the order was not received or not communicated or not passed cannot extend the period of limitation for obtaining relief of the nature of compassionate appointment.

Provisions for compassionate appointment have been made only for the special reasons to deal with the hardship which may be caused to the family of the deceased employee due to sudden death of employee while he is in service and as the compassionate appointment is not a right, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned order whereby the writ petition of the petitioner has been dismissed after considering the various judgements of the Hon''ble Supreme Court.

In view of the above, the instant L.P.A. is dismissed.