Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DAILYLAW 38350 (ALL)

SMT. SHEELU PANDEY @ SHIVANGINI BHARGAV v. GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND 4 OTHERS

SPLA/296/2025 · 2025-04-15

Anish Kumar Gupta, Ashwani Kumar Mishra

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:55412-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 296 of 2025 Appellant :- Smt. Sheelu Pandey @ Shivangini Bhargav Respondent :- Government Of India And 4 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Mahendra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Pranjal Mehrotra Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This appeal arises out of an order passed by learned Single Judge whereby claim for compassionate appointment of appellant has been rejected on the ground of delay. The appellant happens to be the married daughter of the deceased employee, who died in the year 2012. The writ petition has been filed in the year 2025. Learned Single Judge has taken the view that after such long lapse of time a claim for compassionate appointment need not be entertained. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the claim for appointment was instituted in the year 2014 itself and the authorities kept the matter pending and in such circumstances there is no delay on part of the appellant in instituting the claim. 4. Such submission of the appellant is noticed only to be rejected. In the event, an application was moved for compassionate appointment in the year 2014 and the same was not processed a cause of action had arisen to the appellant to approach the competent forum in respect of the grievance relating to non- consideration of claim for compassionate appointment. This, however, was not done. Law is otherwise settled that continuous making of representations will not extend the period of limitation. The object of granting compassionate appointment is otherwise to tide over the sudden exigency created for the family on account of death of the sole bread earner. Such exigency would ordinarily not exist after expiry of more than 12 years. We otherwise find that the deceased employee had left behind the widow, who is already receiving pension. The appellant otherwise got married prior to death of the deceased employee. In such circumstances, we find no error in the view taken by learned Single Judge to non-suit the appellant on the ground of laches. 5. Special appeal, consequently, fails and is dismissed. Order Date :- 16.4.2025 RA Digitally signed by :- RAZIQ ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad