Ranjeet Singh vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2021 Latest Caselaw 9260 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 33
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7965 of 2021
 

 
Petitioner :- Ranjeet Singh
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Yadav
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Siddharth Singhal
 

 
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

Claim for compassionate appointment has been rejected by the Life Insurance Corporation vide order dated 16.10.2020, which is impugned herein. The order impugned records that petitioner's age is above the maximum age permissible for appointment i.e. 30 years, as such, his application cannot be considered. It has further come on record that petitioner's elder brother is already employed in the State Government.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner's brother is not supporting the family and the financial hardship in the family subsists.

Sri Manish Goyal, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent has invited attention of the Court to the application for compassionate appointment which mentions that a sum of Rs. 1,04,00,000/- was paid towards terminal benefits to the widow of the deceased employee. One of the petitioner's brother is also in government service and petitioner's mother is receiving family pension. It is urged by Sri Goyal that no special circumstance exists for relaxing the maximum age of appointment prescribed under Regulation 10 of the Life Insurance Corporation of India Staff Regulations, 1960. Reliance is placed upon a judgment of this Court in the case of Anurag Awasthi Vs. Executive Director Personnel L.I.C. and others, 2017(9) ADJ 310 (DB).

From a perusal of the materials placed on record, it is apparent that the wife of the deceased employee has received more than a crore of rupees towards terminal benefits. She is also getting family pension. One of the petitioner's brother is already in government service. No circumstance has been brought before the Court which may persuade the Court to direct relaxation of maximum age limit prescribed under Rule 10. Petitioner is otherwise ineligible for compassionate appointment being above 30 years, upto which alone appointment could be offered.

It is not a case of financial hardship and the family is otherwise looked after well. No relief in such circumstances can be granted to the petitioner. Law is otherwise settled that compassionate appointment is not a vested right and is a concession granted to the family of the deceased to tide over the sudden difficulty caused due to death of sole bread-earner.

The writ petition fails and is dismissed.

Order Date :- 2.8.2021

Ranjeet Sahu