Brijesh Kumar Yadav vs State Of U.P. & 3 Others
2013 Latest Caselaw 3983 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 32
 

 
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 662 of 2013
 

 
Appellant :- Brijesh Kumar Yadav
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. & 3 Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Sanjay Kumar
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C. S. C.
 

 
Hon'ble Sunil Ambwani,J.

Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.

1.  This appeal is reported to be beyond time by 21 days. 

2.  We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. Learned standing counsel appears for the Respondents. 

3.  The delay has been sufficiently explained, and is accordingly condoned. The appeal will be given regular number.

4.  The appeal was heard.

5.  This intra court Special Appeal arises out of judgment of the learned  Single Judge dated 15.05.2013, by which he has dismissed the writ petition arising out of an order rejecting the petitioner's application for  compassionate appointment on the ground that the application was unreasonably delayed.   The petitioner was one year old at the time of death of his father on 13.01.1993, in harness, serving as constable in civil police..

6.  Learned Single Judge has considered the entire case law on the subject, and has come to conclusion that the delay of 20 years cannot be condoned, for consideration of compassionate appointment.  We further find from the facts narrated in the order that the petitioner born in 1992, became major in the year 2010.  He passed his High School School Examination in the year 2007, intermediate in 2009 and became graduate in 2012, after which his mother  moved an application on 8.2.2013, for compassionate appointment  to her son. The  reasons,  as to why the petitioner did not apply for appointment when he became major in the year 2007 or immediately thereafter was not explained. We do not find any error in the judgment of the learned Single Judge.

7.  The  compassionate appointment is not a heritable right, which can be claimed by the dependent at any time. It is an anti meriterian appointment, given to a  dependent member  of the family, to tide over the immediate financial crisis.  In the present case, the delay of 20 years has defeated the purpose for which the appointment has been claimed. The State Government cannot  be expected to leave vacancies unfilled for the dependents to apply at their discretion.

8.  The Special Appeal is dismissed.

Order Date :- 10.7.2013

nethra