Jitendra Gaur vs State of M.P.

Sujoy Paul, Judge

The petitioner has challenged the order dated 23.9.2011 whereby his claim of compassionate appointment is rejected. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length.

The petitioner''s father expired on 23.2.1997. The petitioner, who has presently completed 30 years had preferred an application for compassionate appointment on 23.12.2008 (Annexure P-3), i.e. about 11 years after the death of his father. The respondents considered it and on the basis of their circular dated 13.1.2011 rejected it. It is mentioned that as per circular dated 13.1.2011, only those cases will be considered where the bread winner has died after 13.12.2001. The petitioner has not chosen to challenge the validity of the circular.

Apart from this, the claim of the petitioner was belatedly preferred after ten years. The basic purpose of grant of compassionate appointment is to provide an immediate helping hand to the family under distress. The persons who were sleeping over their right and filed litigation belatedly are held to be not entitled for compassionate appointment. This view is taken by the Supreme Court in the following judgments:-

1) Ashok Kumar Vs. District Magistrate, Basti and Another,

2) Sanjay Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar and Others,

3) Somvatibai Jhariya Vs. State of M.P. and others,

Considering the aforesaid, I find no reason to entertain in this petition. The petition is dismissed being bereft of merits and substance. No cost.