MC/3628/2011 of HIRANYA KR. SAHARIAH and 128 ORS Vs THE STAT OF ASSAM and ORS, on 23 December 2011

MC 3628/2011BEFOREHON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. A. K. GOELTHE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A. C. UPADHYAY

This application has been filed for leave to appeal against judgment of this Court 03.08.2006 in WP(C) No.3875 of 2005 by as many as 129 applicants who are said to have claimed compassionate appointments on death of employees in harness between 1988 to 7.12.2009 [except in two cases being Serial Nos.13 and 113 of Annexure-1 to the writ appeal in whose case death took place in the year 2011], as per chart Annexure-1. According to the petitioners, applications for compassionate appointment were made on dates shown in the said chart but they were not informed of the decision. They are aggrieved by judgment of this Court in Achyut Ranjan Das and others vs. State of Assam and others, reported in 2006(4) GLT 674, inter alia, laying down that such applications need no consideration after two years, if within two years vacancies are not available.

Admittedly, the appellants have not taken any legal remedy in the last 2 to 21 years. Their claim appears to be barred by laches. It is now well settled by the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, inter alia, in Smt. Sushma Gosain and others -vs- Union of India and others [(1989)4 SCC 468] and Umesh Nagpal, [(1994)4 SCC 138] that compassionate appointment is given only to meet emergent situation to save the family from starvation and penury. When a claimant for compassionate appointment does not approach the Court for a long period the Court may not be inclined to entertain such a petition. The view taken in the judgment of this Court in Achyut Ranjan Das(supra) is mere reiteration of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

In the circumstances, there is no reason to allow the appellants to take indirect remedy of permission to file appeal against the judgment in Achyut Ranjan Das(supra,) when they may not be in a position to file a writ petition. They cannot be allowed to do indirectly what is not permitted directly.

It is made clear that this order will not debar the applicants at serial Nos.13 and 113 of Annexure-1 to the writ appeal, in whose case the death took place in 2011, to take their remedy in accordance with law.Misc. Case is accordingly dismissed, subject to the remedy of applicants mentioned above.