The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of a compassionate appointment application filed 15 years after the servant's death. The Court held that such appointment is a concession, not a right, and the substantial delay barred relief.
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. - 13350 of 2018
Petitioner :- Manish Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Vijay Gautam,Mohammad Fahad Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
This petition is directed against an order dated 24.5.2017, whereby petitioner's application for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected by the authority concerned on the ground that there exists no reason to extend the limitation of five years within which ordinarily an application for grant of compassionate appointment is to be moved. The order records that eldest daughter of the deceased employee was major at the time of death of employee concerned, but no application for grant of compassionate appointment has been moved by her and that attempt of the family was to secure appointment for the petitioner, who is youngest in the family. It is also recorded that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and that the widow is otherwise receiving pension and other benefits. It is not in dispute in the present case that petitioner's father was employed as Constable in U.P. Police, who died on 9.11.1998.
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 Sri Vijay Gautam, 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 :- 13.7.2018 Ashok Kr.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a 15-year delay in applying for compassionate appointment can be condoned given that the deceased's widow receives a pension.
Whether the family's failure to apply for compassionate appointment while other members were capable disqualifies the petitioner.
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)
Manish Kumar
State Of U.P.
Ashwani Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
