Narendra and Another Vs State of Up and 2 Others

¶1

1

¶2

AFR

¶3

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:10480

¶4

Court No. - 5

¶5

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19256 of 2024

¶6

Petitioner :- Narendra And Another Respondent :- State Of Up And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Anadi Krishna Narayana,C.S.C.

¶7

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶8

The father of the petitioner died in-harness on 04.05.2021 who was the employee of the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. The petitioner made an application for grant of appointment on compassionate ground in the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation.

¶9

By the letter dated 11.11.2024 by the respondent No.2Regional Manager, Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation, Aligarh the petitioner No.1 has been offered an appointment on the post of driver/conductor in the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the “Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974”). The petitioner No.1 has declined the aforesaid offer. The petitioner No.1 wants to be appointed to the post of a peon on compassionate grounds.

¶10

The petitioner is entitled to appointment on the post of peon under the Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974.

¶11

Shri Anadi Krishna Narayana, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 and 3 submits that as per the

¶12

2

¶13

applicable policy, the appointment on compassionate ground can only be made on the post of driver/conductor and not peon.

¶14

Shri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned counsel could not dispute that the post of peon is not covered under the policy of Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974.

¶15

The purpose of grant of compassionate ground appointments can be subserved and their constitutionality can be saved only by strict compliance of the rules governing the grant of compassionate ground appointments.

¶16

The Supreme Court in the Director of Treasuries in Karnataka & Anr. v. Somyashree¹ emphatically reiterated the well settled position of law of making compassionate appointments in conformity with the norms governing the grant of said appointments by summarizing the law as follows:

¶17

“ 7 …...(i) that the compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule;

¶18

(ii) that no aspirant has a right to compassionate appointment;

¶19

(iii) the appointment to any public post in the service of the State has to be made on the basis of the principle in accordance with Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India;

¶20

(iv) appointment on compassionate ground can be made only on fulfilling the norms laid down by the State’s policy and/or satisfaction of the eligibility criteria as per the policy;

¶21

(v) the norms prevailing on the date of the consideration of the application should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment.”

¶22

1 Civil Appeal No.5122 of 2021

¶23

3

¶24

The necessity to strictly adhere to rules relating to compassionate grounds was succinctly summarized by the Calcutta High Court in Ipsita Chakrabarti v. State of West Bengal² . Ipsita Chakrabarti (supra) upon consideration of holdings of various Constitutional Courts held:

¶25

“(a) Appointment on compassionate grounds is an exception craved out to the general rule that recruitment to public services is to be made in a transparent and accountable manner providing opportunity to all eligible persons to compete and participate in the selection process.

¶26

(b) The right of a dependent of an employee who died in harness for compassionate appointment is based on the scheme, executive instructions, rules etc. framed by the employer and there is no right to claim compassionate appointment on any other ground apart from the above scheme conferred by the employer.

¶27

(c) Appointment on compassionate ground is given only for meeting the immediate hardship which is faced by the family by reason of the death of the bread earner. When an appointment is made on compassionate ground it should be kept confined only to the purpose it seems to achieve, the idea being not to provide for endless compassion.

¶28

(d) Compassionate appointment has to be exercised only in warranting situations and circumstances existing in granting appointment and guiding factors should be financial condition of the family.”

¶29

Furthermore, the Calcutta High Court in Sri Bijon Mukherjee v. The State of West Bengal and others³ again stated what is by now the settled position of law that the appointments on compassionate ground must be made only in consonance with the specific rules applicable to the employee :

¶30

“ 26 . After observing the ratio and the legal positions contended by the

¶31

2 (2018) 2 CAL LT 177 (HC)

¶32

3 (2018) 3 CAL LT 136 (HC)

¶33

4

¶34

Counsels appearing on behalf of the parties as well as the precedents examined above, I am persuaded to opine that appointment on compassionate grounds seeks to relieve the immediate financial hardship faced by the dependants of the deceased. It acts as an exception to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution as the defendant are given preferential appointment ahead of other equally meritorious candidates similarly placed and hence it cannot be claimed as a right. With the object of appointment on compassionate grounds in mind, it is palpably clear to me that this appointment must be done in accordance with the rules for such appointment. The dependant seeking such appointment must be eligible for such consideration and facing financial hardship to the extent delineated by the rules."

¶35

Ipsita Chakrabarti (supra) and Sri Bijon Mukherjee (supra) were followed by the Calcutta High Court in Ankita Saha and Anr. v. The State of West Bengal and Ors⁴ .

¶36

In effect the petitioner wants an appointment which is in the teeth of the policy for appointment on compassionate ground.

¶37

In the wake of preceding discussion and authorities in point, the claim of the petitioner for appointment on the post of peon under the Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 in the Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation cannot be entertained.

¶38

The writ petition is liable to be rejected. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶39

Order Date :- 22.1.2025 Ashish Tripathi

¶40

4 WPA No.12287 of 2019 (Calcutta High Court)

¶41

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH NAYAN TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Narendra and Another v. State of Up and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narendra and Another v. State of Up and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases