Allahabad High Court
Vijay Kumar vs State Of U.P. And Anr. on 5 May, 2017
Bench: Manoj Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Court No. 59
A.F.R.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 19618 of 2017
Vijay Kumar
Versus
State of U.P. and another
____________
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.
1. The case of the petitioner is that his sister Smt. Sonu Devi, widow of Late Vijay Kumar was in employment, as a Class IV employee with Nagar Nigam, Allahabad. She died on 25 May 2015, while in harness. The mother of the petitioner filed an application on 15 June 2016 for granting appointment to the petitioner on compassionate basis. In the application, it is stated that the petitioner's sister has died issueless. The petitioner has been nominated in the service records to receive the terminal benefits. Consequently, he be also granted compassionate appointment. Since the application remained pending and the petitioner was not given compassionate appointment, the instant writ petition has been filed seeking a mandamus commanding the second respondent to forthwith appoint the petitioner on compassionate basis under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants (Dying-in-Harness) Rules, 19741.
2. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that since his deceased sister has not left behind any issue, therefore, as per the definition of 'heir' under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the petitioner is entitled to claim compassionate appointment.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 2 submitted that Smt. Sonu Devi was working on ad hoc basis and, therefore, the Rules would not be applicable. She further submitted that the petitioner is not covered by the definition of 'family', as defined under Rule 2(c).
4. It is now well settled that compassionate appointment is not a source of recruitment, but is granted to the dependent of a deceased government employee in order to tide over the financial crisis that befall the family as a result of death of the bread earner. A compassionate appointment is to be granted strictly in accordance with the Scheme or Rules, under which it is being claimed. The Rules define 'family' as under : -
"2(c) "family" shall include the following relations of the deceased Government servant:
(i) Wife or husband;
(ii) Sons/adopted sons;
(iii) Unmarried daughters, unmarried adopted daughters, widowed daughters and widowed daughters-in-law;
(iv) Unmarried brothers, unmarried sisters and widowed mother dependent on the deceased Government servant, if the deceased Government servant was unmarried;
(v) aforementioned relations of such missing Government servant who has been declared as "dead" by the competent Court;
Provided that if a person belonging to any of the above mentioned relations of the deceased Government servant is not available or is found to be physically and mentally unfit and thus ineligible for employment in Government service, then only in such situation the word "family" shall also include the grandsons and the unmarried granddaughters of the deceased Government servant dependent on him."
5. Admittedly, the sister of the petitioner was a married woman. Consequently, the petitioner, who is a brother, would not be covered by the definition of family, as given under the Rules.
6. The definition of 'heir' under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, would not be applicable for determining as to whether a person is entitled to compassionate appointment or not under the Rules. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, regulates right of a person to succeed to the estate of a deceased. The definition of 'heir' in the Act is given in the aforesaid context. On the other hand, the object of framing the Rules is to provide immediate succour to the dependents of a deceased government servant. The definition of family under the Rules has been framed keeping in mind the aforesaid object. Thus, the definition of 'family' as given under the Rules cannot be equated with the definition of 'heir' under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The contention of the petitioner is misconceived.
7. The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.)
Dated: 5 May 2017
AM/-
