Allahabad High Court
Sunil Upadhyay And Another vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 5 July, 2022
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7276 of 2016
Petitioner :- Sunil Upadhyay And Another
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Chandra Upadhyay,Akhilesh Kumar Shukla,Kundan Rai,Vijay Kumar Dubey
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.
Husband of the petitioner no.2 died on 18.6.2005 in harness while working as Constable in GRP Police Lines, Moradabad. After more than four years, petitioner no.1 moved an application for appointment under the dying in Harness Rules with NOC of petitioner no.2.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in pursuance of the aforesaid application, many communications were exchanged and even the petitioner no.1 was medically examined also. However, the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner no.1 for compassionate appointment on 3.6.2015 i.e. the application was kept pending with the respondents for about six years. This writ petition was filed challenging the said order.
Learned counsel for the petitioners further submit that there was no fault on behalf of the petitioners and they have approached for compassionate appointment as soon as the petitioner no.1 attained majority, therefore, the reasons given in the impugned order that the application was filed belatedly are not correct.
Learned Standing Counsel submits that the application was filed belatedly.
The purpose to grant compassionate appointment is to tide over the immediate crisis.
It is not in dispute that husband of the petitioner no.2 died on 18.6.2005 in harness while working as Constable in GRP Police Lines, Moradabad and thereafter the application for compassionate appointment was filed after four years.
It is true that the matter was kept pending with the respondents and it was finally rejected on 3.6.2015. However, the fact remains that the purpose and object to grant compassionate appointment is to tide over the immediate crisis, which is not in existence.
In Government of India & Anr Vs. P. Venkatesh, (2019) 15 SCC 613 while considering the delay in such cases has followed the judgment of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138, wherein it has held as under:
"?This staleness of the claim took away the very basis of providing compassionate appointment."
In the present case, object to grant compassionate appointment is to tide over the immediate crisis, is not available after a lapse of 17 years.
Considering the aforesaid facts and the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Government of India & Anr Vs. P. Venkatesh, (supra), I do not find any merit in this writ petition.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 5.7.2022
SB
