Writ petition challenging rejection of compassionate appointment claim filed after 15 years. Court held appointment is not a right, delay uncondoned, and relist dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 58
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12871 of 2018
Petitioner :- Vikram Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Surendra Kumar Chaubey,Sushil Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
An order passed by the State Government dated 05.04.2018, rejecting the petitioner's claim for appointment on compassionate ground, has been challenged in this petition. The order records that the father of the petitioner died, while on duty, on 06.06.2007. An application, although was moved by the petitioner's mother on 16.08.2007, but it only said that since petitioner is a minor, therefore, his claim for grant of compassionate appointment be considered after the petitioner attains majority. An application appears to have been moved in 2013 and thereafter, such application was processed, but ultimately, it was found that the application has been moved beyond a period of five years. Matter was, therefore, referred to the State Government for grant of exemption from the limitation prescribed under the Rules. The State Government has considered such aspects and by the order impugned, the prayer made to extend the limitation has been declined by observing that grant of compassionate appointment is not a matter of right, which can be availed of, at any point of time.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that action of the respondents in denying him compassionate appointment is arbitrary, inasmuch as various other persons similarly placed have been appointed. It is also contended that the family of petitioner continues to suffer on account of death of deceased employee, and therefore, in view of the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Shiv Kumar Dubey vs. State of U.P. and others , 2014 (2) ADJ 312, the authorities were obliged to extend the period of five years within which application could be made for grant of compassionate appointment.
Learned Standing Counsel has opposed the petition in view of the reasons recorded in the order impugned itself.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State authorities and have perused the materials available on record.
At the very outset, it would be relevant to note that the law is settled that object to grant of compassionate appointment is to allow the family to tide over the sudden difficulty caused due to death of sole bread-earner. Such
appointment is not a matter of right and is in the nature of concession, which is to be extended for a specific purpose. In the facts of the present case, application for grant of compassionate appointment has been moved almost after 15 years of the death of deceased employee. The finding in the order that the eldest daughter in the family was major at relevant point of time and could have made the application for grant of compassionate appointment has not been challenged. It is otherwise settled that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed by a minor, after waiting for him to attain majority, if there exits other members, who could have moved an application for grant of compassionate appointment. The fact that members of the family have not moved any application for the last 15 years would clearly go to show that object to grant compassionate appointment is not inconsistent with the facts of the present case, and that the anxiety on part of the family was to secure employment for the only son in the family. This would clearly be inconsistent with the policy.
In the facts and circumstances, this Court finds no error in the order refusing to condone the delay in making of application and thereby rejecting the application for grant of compassionate appointment. It is otherwise on record that widow is receiving pension and the petitioner has also not been able to show that they are living in penury even as on date. In view of the law laid down by this Court in Shiv Kumar Dubey (supra) also, petitioner would not be entitled to any relief.
Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 19.7.2018 Amit Mishra
2 issues framed by the court
Whether delay of 15 years in applying for compassionate appointment can be condoned under the doctrine of equity despite precedent allowing limitation extension under similar facts.
Whether compassionate appointment is a matter of right or a concession subject to strict compliance with time limits.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shiv Kumar Dubey vs. State of U.P. and othersRelied on¶6
Shiv Kumar Dubey vs. State of U.P. and others, 2014 (2) ADJ 312
Shiv Kumar DubeyRelied on¶11
Shiv Kumar Dubey (supra)
Vikram Singh
State Of U.P.
Ashwani Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
