IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Special Appeal No. 24 of 2010 Santosh Kumar …Appellant. Versus Union of India and others. …Respondents. Mr. Manoj Tewari, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sachin Mohan Singh Mehta, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. V.B.S. Negi, Advocate for the respondents. Coram: Hon’ble J.S. Khehar, C.J. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. J.S. Khehar, C.J, (Oral) 1. The appellant’s father Vikram Lal was engaged in the Border Roads Organisation. While in service, Vikram Lal died on 6.9.1994. The appellant’s mother i.e. the widow of Vikram Lal moved a representation dated 27.10.1994 seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The representation made by the appellant’s mother was rejected on 16.11.1994. A perusal of the order dated 16.11.1994 reveals that she was informed, that when her son attained the age of 18 years, the Centre to which she has made her representation (for appointment on compassionate grounds) could consider his candidature for recruitment. 2. The date of birth of the appellant being 2.7.1983, he attained the age of majority on 2.7.2001. The appellant thereafter moved a representation in December, 2002 claiming appointment on compassionate grounds. By an order dated 25.1.2003, his request was declined. It is the case of the appellant that after his representation was declined by the authorities, he continued to make supplementary representations claiming appointment on compassionate grounds. However, when no fruitful result 2 emerged from his representations, he approached this Court by filing Writ Petition (SS) No. 106 of 2010. The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court by an order dated 24.2.2010. A perusal of the aforesaid order reveals that the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed for reasons of delay and latches, as also, on account of the fact that the Court lacked territorial jurisdiction. 3. On the issue of delay and latches, while learned counsel for the appellant has acknowledged the factual position narrated in the foregoing paragraph, it is submitted that after the filing of Writ Petition (SS) No. 106 of 2010, the respondents again rejected the claim of the appellant for appointment on compassionate grounds by an order dated 26.2.2010. Based on the fact that the claim of the appellant was pending consideration with authorities till 26.2.2010, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant, that the writ petition filed by the appellant before this Court could not have been dismissed for reasons of delay and latches. 4. We have considered the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, as has been noticed in the foregoing paragraph. There can be no doubt whatsoever that the representation made by the appellant in December, 2002 for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected by an order dated 25.1.2003. The appellant had waited for seven long years, before he approached this Court by filing Writ Petition (SS) No. 106 of 2010. By the time, he approached this Court, he could not even have availed the remedy of filing a civil suit in view of the law of limitation. Having waited for more than seven years before approaching this Court, undoubtedly the appellant was guilty of delay and 3 latches, and the learned Single Judge was fully justified in dismissing the writ petition by passing the impugned order dated 24.2.2010, inter alia, on the ground of delay and latches. 5. Inspite of the determination rendered by us hereinabove, it is imperative for us to examine the order passed on 26.2.2010, which is the primary basis of the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant requiring this Court to re-examine the matter on issue of delay and latches. Accordingly, we have gone through the order dated 26.2.2010. A perusal thereof reveals that an application for appointment on compassionate ground can be entertained only within one year from the date of death of the bread-winner, who has died in harness, and in some circumstances, the date of consideration can be extended upto three years from the date of death of the bread-winner, but there is no scope for any further extension beyond the period of three years. There is no provision of extending the period of three years, even for dependents of an employee, who dies in harness, who are minors at the time of death of the bread-winner. In other words, even the order dated 26.2.2010 expressly informs the appellant that his case could not be considered on account of delay. In the background of the aforesaid factual position, we find no justification whatsoever to interfere with the impugned order dated 24.2.2010. 6. The second issue canvassed at the hands of the learned counsel for the appellant pertains to territorial jurisdiction determined by the learned Single Judge while disposing of Writ Petition (SS) No. 106 of 2010. Insofar as the instant issue is concerned, learned counsel for the respondent Sri V.B.S. Negi very fairly states that the 4 determination rendered by the learned Single Judge on the issue of territorial jurisdiction should be set aside. We order accordingly. 7. The instant Special Appeal stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) (J.S. Khehar, C.J.) 22.3.2010 Avneet