Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dinesh Kumar Sharma vs State Of Punjab And Others on 3 April, 2013
Author: Augustine George Masih
Bench: Augustine George Masih
CWP No. 7088 of 2013 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CWP No. 7088 of 2013
Date of Decision : April 03, 2013
Dinesh Kumar Sharma
.... PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Punjab and others
..... RESPONDENTS
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present : Mr. Balwinder Singh, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL)
Petitioner has approached this Court praying for appointment on compassionate ground as per the instructions dated 05.02.1996 (Annexure P-1).
Briefly, the facts of the case are that the father of the petitioner died on 11.08.1999. Petitioner applied for appointment to the post of a Clerk. The claim of the petitioner qua the said post was not considered instead he was offered an appointment on compassionate ground on the post of a Constable, which was accepted by the petitioner and the petitioner joined on the post of a CWP No. 7088 of 2013 2 Constable on 03.02.2001. Petitioner continued to serve the respondents as Constable and thereafter, he preferred CWP No. 3106 of 2007, wherein he claimed appointment to the post of a Clerk. After obtaining reply and the replication of the petitioner, this Court was pleased to dismiss the same vide order dated 10.09.2008. Petitioner thereafter preferred a review application in the said writ petition asserting therein that as per the instructions dated 14.11.1996, the petitioner was entitled to the claim, as had been made by him in the said writ petition. Unfortunately, the said review application also stands dismissed.
The prayer, therefore, made in the present writ petition cannot be accepted in the light of the fact that the earlier writ petition preferred by the petitioner for the same cause of action has been dismissed and has attained finality.
That apart, there is an inordinate and unexplained delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching this Court, which itself goes against the petitioner for filing the present writ petition. The claim projected in the present writ petition is identical to the same, which was claimed by the petitioner in CWP No. 3106 of 2007.
For both the above reasons, the writ petition stands dismissed.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH )
April 03, 2013 JUDGE
pj
CWP No. 7088 of 2013 3