IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1651-1652 OF 2012 (@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION(C)NOS. 20834-20835 OF 2007)

ASHOK KUMAR       ...APPELLANT

VERSUS

DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, BASTI & ANR.     ...RESPONDENTS

O R D E R

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals are directed against the judgment and order passed  

by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad dated 12.2.2007 in C.M.  

Delay Condonation Application No.33025 of 2007 in Special Appeal  

No.123 of 2007 and order dated 12.2.2007 passed in Special Appeal  

No.123  of  2007.  By  the  impugned  judgment,  the  High  Court  has  

affirmed the view taken by the learned Single Judge in his order  

dated 14.07.2005, wherein he dismissed the Writ Petition filed by  

the appellant.

3.   The facts, in nutshell, are :

The appellant, before us, is the elder son of the deceased  

employee,  who  died  in  harness,  according  to  the  appellant.  

Immediately, thereafter the appellant had filed an application dated  

16.06.2001 before the District Magistrate, Basti for his appointment  

on compassionate grounds.  The request so made was not considered by  

the said authority, in spite of long lapse of time.  This prompted  

the appellant to approach the High Court for a Writ in the nature of  

Mandamus.  The High Court, vide order dated 09.11.2001, taking into

consideration that the authority, who was supposed to exercise its  

jurisdiction, had not done within a reasonable time and had directed  

the District Magistrate to consider the representation filed by the  

appellant within a period of three months.

4. Pursuant to the direction so issued by the High Court, while  

disposing of the Writ Petition, the District Magistrate, Basti has  

passed  an  order  dated  15.02.2002,  inter  alia,  holding  that  the  

appellant's father had expired after he retired from service, on  

attaining the age of superannuation and therefore, the appellant  

cannot seek for compassionate appointment. This order again became a  

subject matter of a Writ Petition.

5. The learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the  

date on which the appellant's father retired from service and the  

date on which he expired, has come to a conclusion that the death of  

the  appellant's  father  occurred  only  after  he  had  retired  from  

service, after attaining the age of superannuation. Accordingly, the  

learned  Single  Judge  dismissed  the  Writ  Petition  vide  his  order  

dated 14.07.2005.

6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the learned Single  

Judge, the appellant had filed an appeal before the Division Bench  

of  the  High  Court  of  Judicature  at  Allahabad  in  Special  Appeal  

No.123 of 2007.  However, there was an unexplained delay of one year  

and 178 days in filing the appeal. The only explanation that was  

offered by the appellant was that his mother was suffering from  

illness, therefore, he could not approach the High Court within the  

stipulated time. In support of the said application, the appellant

had  not  produced  any  documentary  evidence,  such  as  medical  

certificate towards the illness of his mother.  

7. The Division Bench vide its order dated 12.02.2007 after taking  

into consideration the inordinate unexplained delay and also that  

the appellant's father had retired from service, after attaining the  

age of superannuation, has rejected the appeal both on the ground of  

limitation as well as on merits.  The correctness or otherwise of  

the said order is the subject matter of these appeals.

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties to the lis.

9.  Learned  counsel  for  the  appellant  would  submit  that  the  

appellant's father, since he was a government employee, ought to  

have been retired only at the age of 60 and, therefore, would submit  

that  when  the  appellant's  father  died,  he  is  deemed  to  be  in  

service.   It  is  further  stated  by  the  learned  counsel  for  the  

appellant  that  the  appellant,  in  the  appeal  filed  before  the  

Division Bench of the High Court, had categorically stated that he  

could not approach the High Court within the  time limit prescribed  

due to the illness of the appellant's mother and, therefore, the  

High Court ought to have condoned the delay in filing the appeal.

10.  Per  contra,  learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  District  

Magistrate, Basti would submit that the explanation, offered by the  

appellant in approaching the High Court after a long lapse of time,  

was  not  properly  explained  and,  therefore,  the  High  Court  was  

justified  in  rejecting  the  appeal  on  the  ground  of  limitation.  

Further, on merits, learned counsel would submit that the learned  

Single Judge was justified in rejecting the Writ Petition which has  

been affirmed by the Division Bench  of  the  High Court by holding

that  the  appellant's  father  had  retired  from  service,  after  

attaining the age of superannuation.

11. The only issue, which requires to be considered by us in this  

appeal,  is  whether  the  Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court  was  

justified in rejecting the appeal both on the ground of delay as  

well as on laches and, thereby, affirming the orders passed by the  

learned Single Judge.

12. It is not disputed and further it cannot be disputed that the  

appellant's father had not questioned the action of the respondents  

in retiring the appellant's father from service on attaining the age  

of  58  years.   It   also  appear  that  the  appellant's  father  had  

expired  after  he  retired  from  service,  on  attaining  the  age  of  

superannuation.  If that be the case, then it can be safely said  

that the appellant's father did not die in harness but died only  

after  retiring  from  service,  after  attaining  the  age  of  

superannuation. In that view of the matter, the appellant cannot  

claim the benefit of the appointment on compassionate grounds.

13. The Division Bench of the High Court has also dismissed the  

appeal filed by the appellant on the ground of delay and laches. It  

is, time and again, stated that a party who has slept over his  

rights  is  not  entitled  to  the  discretionary  relief  of  the  High  

Court.  In the instant case, it is the case of the appellant that  

his mother was suffering from illness and, therefore, he could not  

file the appeal within statutory period of limitation against the  

judgment and order passed by the Writ Court. But, in support of that  

contention,  the  appellant  had  not  produced   any  documentary

evidence,  such  as  the  medical  certificate  issued  by  a  competent  

doctor.  In the absence of such an evidence, in our opinion, the  

High Court was justified in rejecting the appeal on the ground of  

delay and laches also.

14. In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the  

appellant has not made out a case for our interference. Accordingly,  

the appeals stands dismissed. No costs.

Ordered accordingly.   

...................J. (H.L. DATTU)

...................J. (ANIL R. DAVE)

NEW DELHI; FEBRUARY 07, 2012