IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1370 of 2008 Umesh Prasad, son of late Ram Prasad, resident of Village Lodipur Chandmari, P.S. Danapur, Distt. Patna. --------- Petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India through Defence Minister, Govt. of India, New Delhi. 2. Engineer-in-Chief, Army Headquarter, New Delhi. 3. Chief Engineer, Military E-state Service, Lucknow Cantt. 4. Garrison Engineer, M.E.S. Danapur Cantt., Patna. -------- Respondents ----------- 2 18.4.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the respondent authorities representing the Ministry of Defence and the Army Establishment. The case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground arises out of a cause of action of the year 1982 when his father is said to have died while serving Indian Army on 24.12.1982. It appears that the petitioner, at the time of death of his father, was minor and his mother in the year 1989 along with the petitioner had filed an application for appointment on compassionate ground being CWJC No. 9684 of 1989. The said writ application was disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner and his mother Kaushalya Devi to file a fresh representation and the authorities were directed to consider the same and take a final decision for providing compassionate 2 appointment and to dispose if of by an speaking order. Though the respondents had disposed of the said representation on 9th December, 1991 rejecting the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground by holding that three sons of the father of the petitioner were already employed and the widow of the mother of the petitioner was getting family pension leaving non-else to be taken care of, inasmuch as, there was no minor children or marriageable daughter in the family, such reasons of rejection of the case of the petitioner was not assailed before this Court at any point of time prior to filing of this writ application on 16.1.2008. In the present writ application, however, the petitioner has taken a plea that the reason given in the order dated 9.12.1991 either with regard to the employment of his three children (three sons of the deceased employee) was wholly incorrect and, therefore, the petitioner had represented his case but, the authorities again by an order dated 26.3.1999 had reiterated the same decision rejecting the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. 3 Thereafter, the petitioner’s lawyer had given legal notice and pursuant to that legal notice, the authorities had issued an order on 5th July, 2001 giving liberty to the wife of the deceased employee, the mother of the petitioner to submit fresh application for appointment on compassionate ground. Counsel for the petitioner is not aware as to whether a fresh application was filed, inasmuch as, there is no statement made in the writ application regarding filing of a fresh application. In fact, counsel for the petitioner has not produced even the order of rejection dated 9.12.1991 and the letter dated 5th July, 2001 giving inkling of another rejection of the claim of the petitioner on 26.3.1999 has also surfaced only when this Court had made query about the events which took place after filing of the first writ application by the petitioner and his mother, which was disposed of on 9.12.1991. Infact it becomes more than clear that the petitioner has tried to suppress relevant facts while giving the necessary facts for consideration of his case. The petitioner in all fairness was required to 4 enclose the order dated 9.12.1991 and the order dated 26.3.1999 but, he had conveniently suppressed both of these orders as would be evident from reading of the writ application. It is thus apparent that the material of facts have been suppressed by the petitioner which by itself would disentitle him to get any relief under extraordinary jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Additionally, the petitioner is not even aware as to his mother had ever responded to a fresh offer given by the authorities for filing fresh application for appointment on compassionate ground. The death of the earning family member, the father of the petitioner had taken place on 24.12.1982 and, therefore, this Court after 29 years of the death of the father of the petitioner is not inclined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction even when it has entertained the writ application which ordinarily ought to have been filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal in view of Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, inasmuch as, the father of the petitioner was a civilian in the Indian Army. 5 The law also in this respect stands settled that long delay in moving the court in the matter of compassionate appointment by itself would be sufficient to disentitle the person from seeking a direction for appointment on compassionate ground. In the present case, after 20.3.1991, the petitioner had either kept on representing or sending legal notice even when his case had been rejected on two occasions by the Army authorities on 9.12.1991 and 26.3.1999. The filing of writ application on 16.1.2008, therefore, would hardly explain the inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner for seeking direction to appoint him on compassionate ground. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and, is, accordingly, dismissed. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)