{ 1 } IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR J U D G M E N T D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.565/2009 OM PRAKASH VS. RAJASTHAN STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION & ORS. Date of Judgment : 7.10.2010 PRESENT HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SAPRE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr. D.K. Parihar, for the appellant. Mr. K.K. Bhati and Mr. A.K. Rajvanshy, for the respondents. BY THE COURT: (PER HON'BLE A.M. SAPRE, J) This is an intra-court appeal filed by writ petitioner of Writ Petition No.4119/2009 under Rule 134 of the Rajasthan High Court Rules, 1952 against an order dated 11.5.2009 passed by Single Judge in aforementioned writ petition. 2. By impugned order, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by appellant and declined to grant him the relief which he had claimed in the writ petition. { 2 } 3. So the short question that arises for consideration in this intra-court appeal is whether learned Single Judge was justified in dismissing the writ petition thereby declining to grant to the writ petitioner a relief claimed by him? Facts of the case are these: 4. The appellant's father was in the employment of respondent (State Road Transport Corporation). He was working as driver. He died on 13.11.1993 while in service. The appellant on 2.12.2006 filed an application to respondent requesting them to grant to appellant a compassionate appointment in their services. It is this application which was rejected by respondent on 12.12.2006. The appellant felt aggrieved of this rejection filed writ petition in 2009 out of which this intra-court appeal arises. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition and upheld the rejection order of respondent by impugned order which has given rise to filing of this intra-court appeal by the writ petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant (writ petitioner) placing reliance upon the two decisions reported in 2000(6) SCC -493 (Balbir Kaur and another vs. T.K. Meenakshi (Smt.) and another) and 2008(117) FLR – 849 (Namita Pramanick vs. State of West Bengal & ors.) contended that respondents were wrong on their part in rejecting the appellant's application and that too on the ground of it being belated one. According to him, since appellant was minor at { 3 } time of his father's death, he was ineligible to make an application for compassionate appointment. Learned counsel contended that it was only after the appellant attained the majority, filed an application and sought appointment which should have been granted. 5. In reply, learned counsel for the respondent supported the impugned rejection and contended that delay of 13 years in making an application was a reason sufficient for its rejection. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of record of the case, we are inclined to concur with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. As a result, we find no merit in this appeal. 7. This is what the learned Single Judge held while dismissing the writ petition:- “ Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner's father was driver working with the respondents and he died on 13.11.1993 while in service. It is alleged that the petitioner's son was minor at that time and he immediately after becoming major applied for compassionate appointment which was denied by the respondents vide order/ communication dated 12.12.2006. The respondents denied the compassionate appointment on the ground that after 13 years from the date of death of employee, no compassionate appointment can be { 4 } given to the dependent. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality in the impugned order. There is no merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. ” 8. It is not in dispute that appellant was born on 20.7.1988, whereas his father died on 13.11.1993. It is also not in dispute that appellant in the year 2006 applied for compassionate appointment and then on its rejection in the year 2006 filed a writ petition only in the year 2009. 9. In the facts of this case, we are of the opinion that the delay could be made the basis and was rightly made the basis for rejection of appellant's application. In our opinion, if the appellant was minor at the time of death of his father in the year 1993, then any one other than him in the family who was eligible to apply should have made such application. Infact, deceased's wife, i.e. mother of appellant could have applied for such appointment finding that her son is a minor and cannot apply. It was not done by her. In this case, the very purpose of providing employment immediately after the death got frustrated because no member in the family applied. Had it been so, then the hardship caused to survivors could have been removed by providing compassionate appointment in 1993. In such case, the object is to relieve of hardship by providing immediate employment to surviving member of family who are dependent on the deceased so that family survive. { 5 } 10. In our opinion, the decisions relied on by learned counsel for the appellant do not help the appellant because they only lay down general principles relating to compassionate appointment. So far as decision reported in 2008(117) FLR – 849 (Calcutta) is concerned, that was a case where application was made after 2 years of death and the Calcutta High Court held the delay to be reasonable. In this case, whatever may be the cause, the fact remains that delay was of 13 years. In other words, whether appellant was ineligible to apply due to his minority or otherwise, the fact that the application was made after 13 years from the date of death, could not be disputed. The delay regardless of cause was, therefore, one of the factor which could be made basis for its rejection in the absence of any Rule or Circular providing contrary for entertaining application at the instance of such candidates. No such Rule was pointed out. 11. True it is that family had to suffer hardship in this case because bread earner died in harness. Yet timely remedy at the instance of other members of family not being resorted to, the appellant cannot not be granted indulgence in the category of compassionate appointee in respondent's services. We may, however, observe that if appellant applies in a regular selection against any vacant post if advertised as an eligible candidate and if there is a Rule or any provision giving preference to such candidate, then case of appellant can always be considered sympathetically by respondent { 6 } while granting employment. 12. In view of foregoing discussion, the appeal fails and is dismissed. No cost. ( DINESH MAHESHWARI ),J. ( A. M. SAPRE ),J. /Anil/