Ajay Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 4 July, 2018

[Cites 19, Cited by 0]

Uttarakhand High Court

Ajay Kumar vs State Of Uttarakhand And Others on 4 July, 2018

Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 UTR 611

The petitioner before this Court is major and has now attained the age of 27 years, yet claiming a writ in the nature of mandamus for a direction to the respondents to grant him a compassionate appointment under the Dying-in- Harness Rules on a post compatible to his educational qualification and even claiming to be appointed by granting relaxation to the petitioner as contemplated under proviso to Rule 5 read with Rule 8 of the Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974. He also challenges the two orders rejecting the claim for harness appointment dated 22nd August, 2011 and 2nd July, 2012 belatedly, by filing the writ petition on 9th January, 2018, i.e. almost after 6-1/2. By virtue of the orders impugned, his claim for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected.

2. Briefly put, the case of the petitioner is that his late father Sri Rajendra Singh, who was working as an Assistant Teacher, Government Primary School Manakpur Adampur, Block Bhagwanpur, District Haridwar, had met 2 with the sad demise on 4th June, 1991, i.e. immediately after two years of his appointment as Assistant Teacher which was made on 9th February, 1989.

3. The contention of the petitioner is that at the time of death of his father on 4th June, 1991, he was minor of one year of age only and his mother Prakashi Devi, since being a semi illiterate lady, was not aware of the laws prevalent pertaining to the claim for appointment under the Dying-in- Harness Rules, hence, could not take any action at the relevant time.

4. It is an admitted case of the petitioner that after the death of his father on 4th June, 1991, when he was of one year of age and till the petitioner is said to have attained the age of majority in the year 2008, there had been no application for appointment under the Harness Rules made by the petitioner or his mother. Ultimately, it is also the case that the petitioner had obtained the qualification of graduation (B.Sc.).

5. It is only after having obtained degree of graduation and having attained the age of majority, the application for harness appointment was made for first time after 19 years of death on 04.06.1991 for first time on 22nd December, 2010, even much after attaining majority. Under law, the purpose and intention of the Dying-in-Harness Rules, as it then prevailed on the date of the death of the petitioner's father on 04.06.1991 or even thereafter, it was to provide an immediate reprieve to the bereaved family who has lost its bread winner to tide away the financial crisis of the family. Hence, under the Rules of 1974, itself, it is contemplated that an application for harness appointment ought to be made within a reasonable period for seeking an 3 appointment, for which the upper limit is provided for under the Rules is maximum of five years subject to relaxation to be granted by the State Government. Rule 5 (1)

(iii) of the Rules of 1974 reads under :-

"[5. Recruitment of a member of the family of the deceased. - (1) In case a Government servant dies in harness after the commencement of these rules and the spouse of the deceased Government servant is not already employed under the Central Government or a State Government or a Corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government or a State Government, one member of his family who is not already employed under the Central Government or a State Government or a Corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government or a State Government shall, on making an application for the purposes, be given a suitable employment in Government service on a post except the post which is within the purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, in relaxation of the normal recruitment rules, if such person-

(i).......

(ii).......

(iii) makes the application for employment within five years of the date of death of the Government servant:

Provided that where the State Government is satisfied that the time limit fixed for making the application for employment causes undue hardship in any particular case, it may dispense with or relax the requirement as it may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner."

6. In the instant case, in the light of the fact, what has been stated above and revealed from records, it is clear that application for appointment on compassionate grounds has been made after 19 years of death, hence, it violates Rule 5 (1) (iii) of the Rules of 1974 and would contrary to the purpose and object which the rules intends to achieve.

7. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a case reported in (1995) 6 SCC 476 'Union of India & Others vs. Bhagwan 4 Singh' had dealt with the issue pertaining to the limitation required to be addressed to for filing of an application for seeking a compassionate appointment under the harness rules. It has held in its paragraph-5 that any application for compassionate appointment after five years from the date of the death of the bread winner would be barred by time. The Court has further held that if an application for appointment even if it is moved beyond one year after attaining the majority, it would be barred by limitation. Paragraph-5 is quoted hereunder:

"It is common ground, that normally all appointments on compassionate grounds should be made within a period of five years from the date of occurrence of the event entitling the eligible persons to be appointed. In this case Ram Singh died on 12.9.1972. He left behind his wife, two major sons and the respondent, a minor aged 12 years then. The respondent attained majority in 1980/81. There is no material on record to show that the respondent applied within 5 years from "the event" or within one year from the date of his attaining majority. As early as 21.9.1987 an application filed by the respondent was dismissed. The subsequent applications filed in that behalf were dismissed on 19.6.1990 and 11.6.1991. There is material on record to show that the respondent was aged 33 years at the time of making the application and the last application which was allowed by the Tribunal was one filed nearly 20 years after the death of Ram Singh. Patently the application is barred."

8 In the said judgment it has been held that the claim for harness appointment be negatived when the son of the deceased who claims for an appointment moves an application and that too after 20 years from the date of death, which happens to be identical in the instant case, since application had been moved after 19 years of the event. In this case, admittedly, application was filed after 19 5 years of the date of death, which in the instant case was on 04.06.1991. Paragraph-8 is quoted hereinbelow:

" It is evident, that the facts in this case point out, that the plea for compassionate employment is not to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis or distress which resulted as early as September, 1972. At the time Ram Singh died on 12.9.1972 there were two major sons and the mother of the children who were apparently capable of meeting the needs in the family and so they did not apply for any job on compassionate grounds. For nearly 20 years, the family has pulled on, apparently without any difficulty. In this background, we are of the view that the Central Administrative Tribunal acted illegally and wholly without jurisdiction in directing the Authorities to consider the case of the respondent for appointment on compassionate grounds and to provide him with an appointment, if he is found suitable. We set aside the order of the Tribunal dated 22.2.1993. The appeal is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs."

9. In a judgment as reported in (2003) 7 SCC 511 'State of Manipur vs. Mohammad Rajaodin' it has held that a claim of delayed appointment under the harness rules is dehors to the scheme or the statute, which intends to grant a compassionate appointment to redress the apathy of a family. Filing of an application after 17 years (in the said case) or even after reasonable period on attaining the majority the person applying for appointment is not entitled to any relief on such belated application. Paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13 are quoted hereinbelow:

"9. Admittedly, the respondent's father died before the Office Memorandum came into operation. In the memorandum a time period is stipulated. Since the scheme itself was not in operation when the respondent's father died, the time stipulation as provided in the scheme would not be strictly applicable to the case of the respondent and any one seeking for relief thereunder has to at least move within the time stipulated commencing from the date 6 of the order. Nevertheless, keeping in view at any rate the object for which such appointments which are also compassionate appointments are made the minimum requirement is that the request for appointment should be made as expeditiously as the circumstances warrant. It could not be brought to our notice whether there was any scheme in operation prior to the scheme of 1984 referred to above. As the appointments of such nature envisaged under the said scheme are made to tide over immediate difficulties, there is an inbuilt requirement of urgency in making the application. Though it was contended that the respondent was a minor at the time of his father's death, it is to be noted that he was of 10 years of age in 1980 when his father died. Even if a reasonable period after he attained majority is taken, certainly the application on 25.7.1997 seeking appointment was highly belated.

10. As was observed in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Rani Devi and Anr. AIR 1996 SC 2445 , it need not be pointed out that the claim of person concerned for appointment on compassionate ground is based on the premises that he was dependant on the deceased employee. Strictly this claim cannot be upheld on the touchstone of Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India. However, such claim is considered as reasonable and permissible on the basis of sudden crisis occurring in the family of such employee who has served the State and dies while in service. That is why it is necessary for the authorities to frame rules, regulations or to issue such administrative orders which can stand the test of Articles 14 or 16. Appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Die-in harness scheme cannot be made applicable to all types of posts irrespective of the nature of service rendered by the deceased employee. In Rani Devi's case (supra) it was held that scheme regarding appointment on compassionate ground if extended to all types of casual or ad hoc employees including those who worked as a apprentices cannot be justified on constitutional grounds. In Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar (Mrs.) and Anr. (1994) IILLJ 173 SC it was pointed out that High Courts and Administrative Tribunals cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic considerations to make appointments on compassionate grounds 7 when the regulations framed in respect thereof do not cover and contemplates such appointments. It was noted in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and Ors. [1994] 3 SCR 893 that as a rule in public service appointment should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. The appointment on compassionate ground is not another source of recruitment but merely an exception to the aforesaid requirement taking into consideration the fact of the death of employee while in service leaving his family without any means of livelihood. In such cases the object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crises. But such appointments on compassionate ground have to be made in accordance with the rules, regulations or administrative instructions taking into consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased.

11. In Smt. Sushma Gosain and Ors. v. Union of India and Ors. (1990) ILLJ 169 SC it was observed that in all claims of appointment on compassionate grounds, there should not be any delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread-earner in the family. Such appointments should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. The fact that the ward was a minor at the time of death of his father is no ground, unless the scheme itself envisage specially otherwise, to state that as and when such minor becomes a major he can be appointed without any time consciousness or limit. The above view was re-iterated in Phoolwati (Smt.) v. Union of India and Ors. AIR 1991 SC 469 and Union of India and Ors. v. Bhagwan Singh (1996) ILLJ 1127 SC. In Director of Education (Secondary) and Anr. v. Pushendra Kumar and Ors. [1998] 3 SCR 432 it was observed that in matter of compassionate appointment there cannot be insistence for a particular post. Out of purely humanitarian consideration and having regard to the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided the family would not be able to make both ends meet, provisions are made for giving appointment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for appointment. Care has, however, to be taken that provision for ground of compassionate employment 8 which is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions does not unduly interfere with the right of those other persons who are eligible for appointment to seek appointment against the post which would have been available, but for the provision enabling appointment being made on compassionate grounds of the dependant of the deceased employee. As it is in the nature of exception to the general provisions it cannot substitute the provision to which it is an exception and thereby nullify the main provision by taking away completely the right conferred by the main provision.

12. In State of U.P. and Ors. v. Paras Nath (1999) IILLJ 454 SC it was held that the purpose of providing employment to the dependant of a government servant dying-in harness in preference to anybody else is to mitigate hardship caused to the family of the deceased on account of his unexpected death while in service. To alleviate the distress of the family, such appointments are permissible on compassionate grounds provided there are Rules providing for such appointments. None of these considerations can operate when the application is made after a long period of time. In that case also the delay was 17 years.

13. When case of the respondent is considered in the panorama of aforesaid legal principles, the inevitable conclusion is that he was not entitled for appointment. Even after 1984 scheme came into force, the application was filed after a long lapse of time. He, therefore, had no right much less a legal right to ask for an appointment. Learned Single Judge of the High Court was not justified in directing the appellant to give appointment. It is also on record that there was a ban on direct recruitment under Die-in-harness scheme as is evidenced by Office Memorandum dated 24th July, 2001. The scheme itself provided for a clearance from the Government in the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms (Personnel Division)."

10. In a judgment as reported in AIR (1999) SCC 564 'Dhalla Ram vs. Union of India & Others' has held that a belated claim of compassionate appointment cannot be entertained as the delayed application itself defeats the 9 object, what is intended to be achieved by the harness appointment of providing immediate sustenance to the dependants of the family of the deceased employee. An appointment under the harness rules, it is not a method of recruitment to bypass Article 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India but, rather it is a facility which is extended to provide immediate rehabilitation to the distressed family to save the family from destitution and if sufficient period has lapsed, it cannot be said that there exists any apprehension or possibility of destitution being continued for such a long time.

11. The petitioner, in this writ petition, has principally sought the following reliefs :-

"I. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned letter / order dated 28.08.2011 (Annexure-4) and order / letter dated 2.7.2012 (Annexure-8) issued by respondent no.2.

II. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground under Dying in Harness Rules on a suitable post as per his educational qualification by granting relaxation to the petitioner as provided under the dying in harness rule and as the same is granted in the case of similarly situated candidates Saurabh Bisht (annexure-16) III. To issue any other order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper. "

12. The petitioner has proceeded to go tangent to the subject matter of writ in his pleadings by making a persuasive pleadings to the effect that the family of the petitioner was rather also deprived of the service and retiral dues, such as family pension and other retiral dues ever since the death of his father, i.e. since 4th June, 1991. Hence, the mother is said to have submitted a representation for the claims of retiral dues on 3rd March, 2011, yet again to be 10 noticed after 20 years. He further proceeds to plead that the said record of pensionary and retiral benefits was forwarded by the Block Education Officer, Bhagwanpur to Additional Director Education on 21st March, 2011 and, ultimately, as per the case of the petitioner, the family pension was given to the mother of the petitioner only on 31st January, 2012. The pleadings with regard to the aforesaid grant of family pension may be that it was after 21 years, but that itself will not have any bearing for claim of appointment under the Harness Rules, for the reason that both are distinct to one another and has a different legal object to be attained and if at all there was any right for family pension, it was always a continuous cause of action and its grant on 31st January, 2012, will not in any way augment the claim of petitioner for the grant of compassionate appointment which is governed by time bound action to be taken provided under Rules to commensurate to attain its object.

13. The respondents, according to the case of the petitioner, by virtue of an order dated 28th August, 2011, has rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the same has been filed belatedly after 19 years of death of bread winner and since the death has taken place on 4th June, 1991, 20 years have lapsed, hence, any grant of compassionate appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Rules will defeat the very purpose of the Rules itself because once the family has been able to sustain itself for 20 years after the death of the deceased employee, there is no necessity to grant a compassionate appointment which aims to provide an immediate reprieve to the bereaved family who has lost his bread winner. It seems that the petitioner has accepted that order of 28th August, 2011 rejecting claim without giving 11 challenge to the same within an appropriate time, hence, belated claim would render the writ petition to be suffering from vices of laches.

14. Apparently, what is revealed from the records and pleadings of the writ petition is that without giving a challenge to the order dated 28.08.2011, the mother of the petitioner is shown to have made yet another application on 5th June, 2012, before the respondent authorities claiming for the grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioner.

15. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the Rule of 1974, itself contemplates a relaxation clause, and the appointment has to be made under Harness Rules, for the purposes of meeting the intention contemplated in 1974 Rules and to provide an immediate financial support, considering the family condition of the employees, he deserves to be granted appointment on the post of Clerk, for which he contends to be qualified. However, the claim of the petitioner for Harness appointment which was made by his mother on 05.06.2012, was yet again rejected on 2nd July, 2012. In this rejection order too the Additional Director, yet again has assigned the same reasoning that since the appointment claimed being violative of Rule 5 (1) (iii), having been claimed beyond the period prescribed and almost after 20 years, it does not commensurate to the intention and purpose of Harness Rules rather deceives its object and, hence, such an appointment cannot be granted. Excerpt of the order dated 02.07.2012 is quoted as under :-

"lsokdky esa e`r ljdkjh lsodksa ds vkfJrksa dh HkrhZ fu;ekoyh] 1974 esa fufgr O;oLFkk ds vuqlkj ljdkjh lsod dh e`R;q ds fnukad ls 05 o'kZ ds Hkhrj lsok;kstu ds fy, vkosnu fd;k tkuk pkfg,A e`rd dh e`R;q gq, yxHkx 20 o'kZ ls Hkh vf/kd le; gks x;k gSA vr% izdj.k 20 o'kZ ls vf/kd vof/k dk gksus dk dkj.k "kklukns"k @fu;ekoyh esa nh x;h 12 O;oLFkk ds vuqlkj Jh vt; dqekj iq= Jh jktsUnz flag dks e`rd vkfJr dksVs ds vUrxZr lsok;ksftr fd;k tkuk laHko ugha gSA vr% mDr izdj.k ewy esa layXu dj vkidks izsf'kr fd;k tk jgk gSA"

16. Surprisingly, the orders dated 28.08.2011 and 2nd July, 2012, rejecting his claim for compassionate appointment by the respondent, have not been challenged by the petitioner within an appropriate reasonable time till he files the instant writ petition, it was done only on 9th January, 2018, that too almost after 6-1/2 years of passing of the impugned orders, i.e. much beyond the prescribed period and, thus, the writ petition suffers from vices of laches too. The petitioner without giving challenge to the orders dated 28.08.2011 and 2nd July, 2012 earlier, it seems that the petitioner has yet again raised the claim by filing representation on 5th June, 2012, claiming an appointment under the Harness Rules.

17. The Director, School Education, vide his letter dated 12th July, 2012, had sought certain clarification from the Secretary, School Education seeking necessary direction into the matter. The Director in his letter had specifically made a reference to the earlier order dated 28.06.2011 by virtue of which, the claim of harness appointment was rejected. It also made a reference that the widow of deceased employee had applied after 21 years of death on 05.06.2012. As per the records, the State by its order dated 24th September, 2012, instead of drawing any conclusion on the letter of the Director dated 12th July, 2012, had remitted the matter back to the Directorate vide its Resolution No. 73 directing thereof to reconsider the application for compassionate appointment and remitted the matter. The Joint Secretary, Basic Education, while proceeding on the reference made by the Director, School Education 13 reconsidered the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment and had made the following remark.

"e`rd vkfJr ds :i esa e`r ljdkjh dkfeZd dh e`R;q ds yxHkx 21 o'kZ ckn e`rd vkfJr ds :i esa lsok;ksftr fd, tkus dk fu;ekuqlkj dksbZ vkSfpR; izrhr ugha gksrk gSA vr% funsZ'kd dks funsZf"kr dj fn;k tk; fd e`rd vkfJr fu;ekoyh ds izkfo/kkuksa ds vuqlkj vko";d dk;Zokgh djsaA d`i;k mPpkuqeksnu izkIr djuk pkgsaA"

(R.R. Singh) Joint Secretary, Basic Education 13/09/2012

18. Almost, in pursuance to the impugned orders as well as the directions issued by the Joint Secretary, there was no legal and justifiable claim which was tenable in the eyes of law for the grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioner as being barred by the laches having been made almost after 21 years by now.

19. As on scrutiny of records, as placed by the parties, few dates which are relevant to consider the issue is as to whether at all at this stage the petitioner could be permitted to rack up the issue at a belated stage by filing a writ petition, which suffers from inordinate delay/laches and that too without reasonably explaining the cause of laches, which has chanced in filing the petition. The facts which are necessary are:

             (i)     04.06.1991 father died.
             (ii)    22.12.2010, after 19 years, application for
                     harness appointment made.

(iii) 28.08.2011 the Additional Director of Education (Basic) rejected the claim.

(iv) 05.06.2012 another representation was filed for grant of compassionate appointment though the order dated 28.08.2011 rejecting the claim stood unchallenged.

(v) 02.07.2012, after considering the claim of compassionate appointment was rejected since being a delayed claim after 21 years.

(vi) 17.07.2012, Director made reference to State to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for harness appointment vide his Resolution No. 73.

(vii) 13.09.2012, the Joint Director, Basic Education, concluded that as now there was no relevance for compassionate appointment.

(viii) 24.09.2012, Additional Secretary which responding to letter of Joint Secretary dated 12.07.2012, directed to proceed as per law applicable for harness appointment.

20. From the aforesaid dates it is clear that the ultimate rejection of the claim for compassionate appointment has been done by the office of respondent no. 2 by passing the order dated 02.07.2012. The Writ Petition has been preferred on 09.01.2018 at a highly belated stage, after 6-1/2 years which suffers from laches and even the laches have not been explained in the Writ Petition.

21. The Allahabad High Court in a judgment reported in 1996 ALL. L.J. 1563 'State of U.P. and Another vs. District Judge Varanasi and another' in paragraph-4 has dealt with the effect of laches when a person approaching the Court at a belated stage and has not acted diligently in approaching the Court, no sympathy could be attached and the proceedings drawn deserve to be thrown out. Paragraph-4 of the said judgment is quoted hereunder:

"4. It should not go unnoticed that the petitioner while approaching the equity Court invoking the jurisdiction envisaged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should act with utmost diligence and dispatch. The petitioner with all the facilities at its command and the Chief Standing Counsel representing it do not appear to have acted at diligently in approaching this Court. The petitioner, therefore, does not deserve any sympathy and the writ petition is liable to be thrown out on the aforesaid 15 ground by considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and the question of law involved therein this writ petition is being entertained and the learned Standing Counsel representing the petitioners has been heard."

22. The Five Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment reported in AIR 1974 SC 259, Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar and others vs. State of Maharashtra & Others while dealing with the issue of delay and laches has held that the Courts are not bound to enquire into the vitalities of the merit of the matter. More particularly, when the issue has became stale and such a claim at a belated stage as a rule of practice is not to be enquired at a belated stage. The Court has held that though there is no straight jacketed formula where all petitions are to be refused which are filed at a belated stage because entertaining the petition suffering from laches is a question of discussion but, the discussion has to be exercised only in relation to those litigants who are vigilant to enforce their rights and who had taken an appropriate steps to enforce his rights available to him under law. For the said purpose, it has been laid down that there has to be a reasonable explanation for the delay. In the case at hand, admittedly, the death of the father of the petitioner happens to be of 1991; the application thereof compassionate appointment being made in 2010; the order of rejection happens to be of 2012 and; the Writ Petition having been filed in 2018. Thus, in the instant case, the relief sought becomes barred by law, hence, cannot be put to life again, a stale claim by filing petition after 6-1/2 years of rejection of claim. Even at the time, the writ petition was filed against rejection order that itself was beyond five years, the period provided under Rule 5 for applying after death. Thus, the Writ Petitions 16 suffers from laches and this Court declines to entertain the same. Paragraph-9 is quoted hereinbelow:

"9. The first preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents. was that the petitioners were guilty of gross lashes and delay in filing the petition. The divisional cadres of 'Mamlatdars/Tehsildars were created as far back as 1st November, 1956 by the Government Resolution of that date, and the procedure for making promotion to the posts of Deputy Collector on the basis of divisional select lists, which was a necessary consequence of the creation of the divisional, cadre of Mamlatdars/Tehsildars, had been in operation for a long number of years, at any rate from 7th April, 1961, and the Rules of 30th July, 1959 were also given effect to since the date of their enactment and yet the petitioner did not file the petition until 14th July, 1969. There was a delay of more than ten or twelve years in filing the petition since the accrual of the cause of complaint, and this delay, contended the respondents, was sufficient to disentitle the petitioners to any relief in a petition under Art, 32 of the Constitution. We do not think this contention should prevail with us. In the first place, it must be remembered that the rule which says that the Court may not inquire into related and stale claims is not a rule of law, but a rule of practice based on sound and proper exercise of discretion, and there is no inviolable rule that whenever there is delay, the court must necessarily refuse to entertain the petition. Each case must depend on its own facts. The question, as pointed out by Hidayatullah, C.J., in Tilockchand Motichand v. H. B. Munishi (1969) 2 SCR 824 "is one of discretion or this Court to follow from, case to case. There is no lower limit aid there is no upper limit..... It will all depend on what the breach of the Fundamental Right and the remedy claimed are and how the delay arose." Here the petitioners were informed by the Commissioner, Aurangabad Division, by his letter dated 18th October, 1960 land also by the Secretary of the Revenue Department in January 1961 that the rules of recruitment to the posts of Deputy Collector in the reorganised State of Bombay had not yet been unified, and that the petitioners continued to be governed by the rules of Ex-Hyderabad State and 17 the Rules of 30th July, 1959 had no application to them. The petitioners. were, therefore, justified in proceeding on the assumption that there were no unified rules of recruitment to the posts of Deputy Collector and the promotions that were being made by the State Government were only provisional, to be regularised when unified rules of recruitment were made. It was only when the petition in Kapoor's case was decided by the Bombay High Court that the petitioners came to know that it was the case of the State Government in that petition and that case was accepted by the Bombay High Court that the Rules of 30th July, 1959 were the unified rules of recruitment to the posts of Deputy Collector applicable throughout the reorganised State of Bombay. The petitioners thereafter did not lose any time in Ring the present petition. Moreover, what is challenged in the petition is the validity of the procedure for making promotions to the posts of Deputy Collector-whether it is violative of the equal opportunity clause-and since this procedure, is not a thing of the past but is still being followed by the State Government, it is but desirable that its constitutionality should be adjudged when the question has, come before the court at the instance 'of parties properly aggrieved by it. It may also be noted that the principle on which the Court proceeds in refusing relief to the petitioner on ground of lashes ordeals is that the rights which have accrued to others by reasons of the delay in filing the petition should not be allowed to be disturbed unless there is reasonable explanation for the delay. This principle was stated in the following terms by Hidayatullah, C.J. in Tilokchand v. H. B. Munshi "The party claiming Fundamental Rights must move the Court before other rights come into existence. The action of courts cannot harm innocent parties if their rights emerge by reason of delay on the part of the person moving the Court."

Sikri, J., (as he then was), also restated the same principle in equally felicitous language when he said in' S. N. Bose v. Union of India (AIR 1970 SC 470) : "It Would be unjust to deprive the respondents of the rights which have, accrued to them. Each person ought to be entitled to sit back and consider that his 18 appointment and promotion effected a long time ago would not be set aside after the lapse of a number of years." Here as admitted by the State Government in paragraph 55 of the affidavit in repeal promotions that have been made by the State Government area provisional and the position has not been crystallised to the prejudice of the petitioners. No rights have, therefore, accrued in favour of others by reason of the delay in filing the petition. The promotions being provisional, they have not conferred any rights on hose promoted and they are by their very nature liable to be set a : naught, if the correct legal position, as finally determined, so requires. We were also told by the learned counsel for the petitioners, and that was not controverted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State Government, that even if the petition were allowed and the reliefs claimed by the petitioners granted to them, that would not result in the reversion of any Deputy Collector or officiating Deputy Collector to the post of Mamlatdar/Tehsildar; the only effect would be merely to disturb their inter se seniority as officiating Deputy Collectors or as Deputy Collectors. Moreover it may be noticed that the claim for enforcement of the fundamental right of equal opportunity under Art. 16 is itself a fundamental right guaranteed under. Art. 32 and this Court which has been assigned the role of a sentinel on the quay dive for protection of the fundamental rights cannot easily allow itself to be persuaded to refuse relief solely on the jejune ground of laches, delay or the like."

23. An identical view has been expressed in a judgment reported in AIR 1988 SC 654 'G.C. Gupta & Others vs. N.K. Pandey & Others' though it was dealing with the issue pertaining to the determination of seniority but in its paragraph17 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the Writ Courts under Article 226 will not exercise its jurisdiction where there happens to be inordinate delay due to lack of diligence of invoking an appropriate remedy.

24. Paragraph-9 of the judgment 'Hakim Singh vs. District Judge & Others' reported in AIR 1982 Allahabad 108 is quoted hereunder:

"9. Lastly, it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no period of limitation for the filing of a writ petition and accordingly this Court should interfere with the orders which were passed even anterior to the usual period of 90 days. It is true that there is no period of limitation for filing a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but it is also well known that the settled practice of this Court is that where the petitions are considered to be highly belated, this Court in its discretion refuses to entertain the same. In the instant case, as I have pointed out above, the orders which are sought to be questioned now, apart from the one which was passed on 5-7-1980 were passed long ago and in my discretion, I do not allow the same to be questioned in this petition."

25. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a judgment reported in AIR 2008 SC 647 'State of Tamil Nadu vs. Seshachalam in its paragraph 11 has held that delay and laches always happens to be determining factor with regards to the enforcement of the claim and the benefit which is sought to be derived after raising of belated claim. Para 11 of the said judgment reads as under :-

"Some of the respondents might have filed representations but filing of representations alone would not save the period of limitation. Delay or laches is a relevant factor for a court of law to determine the question as to whether the claim made by an applicant deserves consideration. Delay and / or laches on the part of a Government servant may deprive him of the benefit which had been given to others. Article 14 of the Constitution of India would not, in a situation of that nature, be attracted as it is well known that law leans in favour of those who are alert and vigilant. Opinion of the High Court that GOMs No. 126, dated 29.5.1998 gave a fresh lease of life having regard to the legitimate expectation, in our opinion, is based on a wrong premise. Legitimate 20 expectation is a part of the principles of natural justice. No fresh right can be crated by invoking the doctrine of legitimate expectation. By reason thereof only the existing right is saved subject, of course, to the provisions of the statute (See State of Himchal Pradesh & Anr. V. Kailash Chand Majajan & Ors [1992 Supp (2) SCC 351]."

26. In the present case, despite rejection, though without any authority sustainable under law, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Hon'ble the Chief Minister of Ministry of Welfare and Industrial Development Department, without competence under law based on absolute political consideration has written a letter on 31st December, 2013, requesting the Minister of Education for considering the claim for grant of relaxation for making compassionate appointment under Rule 5 of 2002 Rules as enforced w.e.f. 31.08.2002 without considering the fact that the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment already stood rejected by the competent authority by the order dated 28.08.2011 and 2nd July, 2012 as well as by the endorsement made by the Joint Secretary, Basic Education on 13th September, 2012 as this order dated 13.09.2012 still remains intact and unchallenged even in the present writ petition. At the time when the endorsement was made by the Minister for School Education for re-considering the claim of Harness appointment on 2nd January, 2014, all the orders passed by competent authority under law rejecting the claim of the petitioner were existing in the eyes of law, they have not been challenged by the petitioner and had not been set aside by the competent Court and, as such, merely on the recommendation of the Minister of Education who is not holding an authority under law, as made by him for Parliamentary Secretary to Hon'ble the Chief Minister cannot 21 be taken as basis for overriding the procedure contemplated under law and that too when it defeats the very intention and purpose of the Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 or of 2002 as now applicable 31.08.2002.

27. There happens to be another aspect which is significant for the present writ petition is that the Under Secretary to the Government of Uttarakhand, Department of Education, vide its letter dated 14th July, 2014 (Annexure-12 to the writ petition) informed the Parliamentary Secretary, copy of which was also forwarded to the petitioner and thereby it was held out that no appointment can be made after such a long time. It was held out as under:-

"lalnh; lfpo] ¼ek0 eq[;ea=h½ vYila[;d dY;k.k ,oa vkS|ksfxd fodkl foHkkx d{k la[;k 331] r`rh; ry] fo/kku Hkou] fo/kku lHkk] nsgjknwuA Jh vt; dqekj iq= Lo0 Jh jktsUnz flag] xzke vreyiqj] ckSaxyk cgknjkckn] tuin&gfj}kj dks e`rd vkfJr ds :i esa lsok;ksftr djus fo'k;d vkids i= fnukad 11-02-2014 esa izkIr funsZ"kksa ds dze esa voxr djkuk gS] fd izdj.k ij dkfeZd foHkkx dk ijke"kZ izkIr fd;k x;k A dkfeZd foHkkx }kjk ijke"kZ fn;k x;k gA fd Þe`rd vkfJr ds }kjk vius firk dh e`R;q ds 21 o'kZ ds i"pkr lsok;kftr fd;s tkus gsrq e`rd vkfJr lsok;kstu fu;ekoyh rFkk rnuqorhZ "kklukns"kksa esa dksbZ izkfo/kku ugha gSA e`R;q ds 05 o'kZ ds ckn vkosnu dj fu;qfDr iznku ugha dh tk ldrh gSA e`rd rd dh iRuh }kjk e`R;q ds rRdky ckn vFkok fu/kkZfjr le;&lhek ¼05 o'kZ ds vUrxZr½ Lo;a lsok;kstu dh ekax ugha dh x;h bl d dkj.k kj.k Li"V gS] fd ifjokj dks vuqdEik dh vko";drk ugha FkhA izdj.k e`rd ljdkjh lsodksa ds vkfJrksa gsrq iz[;kfir fu;ekoyh ds vUrxZr ugha gSAß vr% e`rd ljdkjh lsaodksa ds vkfJrksa gsrq iz[;kfir fu;ekoyh ds vUrxZr mDr izdj.k ij f'kfFkyhdj.k fn;k tkuk lEHko ugha gSA d`i;k rnuqlkj oLrqfLFfr ls voxr gksus dk d"V djsaA"

28. It is the petitioner who has placed the letter dated 14.07.2014, passed by the Deputy Secretary, Education Department, who endorses the rejection of claim of harness appointment of the petitioner. It is not the case of the petitioner that this letter 14.07.2014 was not served upon him, yet again, he has not challenged this order at any stage even in the present writ petition, which was required to be 22 challenged since being an order delivering the claim by superior authority. The claim of the petitioner was rejected. Hence, it is repeated herein that the orders dated 28.08.2011 and 2nd July, 2012, impugned in the writ petition and the order of the Joint Secretary, Education dated 13th September, 2012 and the order dated 14th July, 2014, as passed by Deputy Secretary, which had ultimately rejected the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment and, hence, it cannot be re-agitated by the writ petitioner by filing the present writ petition without challenging the subsequent orders passed by the Deputy Secretary, Education on 14th July, 2014, rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment and the grant of relaxation since the death having been chanced on 4th June, 1991, i.e. about 27 years now. That would mean that he has waived and acquiesced his right to challenge subsequent order of rejection, which would be the final order passed by the superior authority. Hence, without challenging the order of superior authority, the challenge to the orders of inferior authority will be of no avail to the petitioner as having merged with subsequent order of rejection by superior authority.

29. A very peculiar mode which has been adopted by the petitioner was not permissible and recognized procedure under law. Though faced with the four consecutive orders of rejection of claim for compassionate appointment. His case is that he had represented before the Chief Minister on 8th December, 2014 for granting compassionate appointment, after the grant of relaxation, but, no decision has been taken on the same. Even his representation to the Chief Minister was after 23 years of 23 death, which is against the very purpose of the Rules, is not sustainable. Because as this application of the petitioner, no cognizance could have been taken by the Hon'ble Chief Minister as it would be violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, the rationale is, it will lay a wrong precedent that someone which has easily accessibility to the policies would have a march over the common people and it would be arbitrary and violative of Article 16 of the Constitution of India.

30. This Court holds that once the claim of compassionate appointment stands rejected consecutively by the competent superior authority and these orders still exist in the eyes of law since having not been put to challenge before a competent Court or even if challenged that too at belated stage intended to the contrary intention of law under which claim is pressed, any subsequent representation to the authority or even to the Hon'ble the Chief Minister, which despite of the fact that it was not maintainable under law because of lack of competence with the Chief Minister to grant compassionate appointment nor having authority under law, the representation itself as submitted on 14th July, 2014, was not tenable.

31. Having said so, this Court is of the considered view that the reason which has been assigned in the impugned orders passed by the competent authority and thereafter by superior authorities rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment is absolutely just and appropriate and in consonance to the object of the Rules of compassionate appointment of 1974 (2002), as such, are upheld. The claim for compassionate appointment of the petitioner is hereby held to be barred by Rule 5 (1) (iii) of the 24 Rules of 1974 (2002), since having been made after 19 years of death and the writ petition, being filed raising claim after 27 years of death, was not tenable.

32. Thus, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. However, there would no order as to cost.

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) 04.07.2018 Shiv

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Uttarakhand High Court