Allahabad High Court
Om Prakash Gaur vs Union Of India Through Its ... on 11 July, 2022
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 20736 of 2018
Petitioner :- Om Prakash Gaur
Respondent :- Union Of India Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Home Affairs, New Delhi, And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Kuldeep Kumar
Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Om Prakash Yadav
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Om Prakash Yadav, learned counsel for the respondents.
This writ petition has been filed seeking following reliefs:
"i) issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2 to consider the appointment of the petitioner on the compassionate ground under the dying-in-harness rule in place of his father late Ashok Kumar.
ii) issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2 to decide the application/representation of the petitioner which is still pending.
iii) issue, any other suitable writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.
iv) award the cost of the petition in favour of petitioner."
Law in respect of compassionate appointment has been reiterated and explained recently by the Supreme Court in the case of Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman and Managing Director and Others Versus Parden Oraon, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 299 paragraph 8 of which is relevant is reproduced below:
"8.The whole object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis which arises due to the death of the sole breadwinner. The mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that the job is offered to the eligible member of the family . It was further asseverated in the said judgment that compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of reasonable period as the consideration of such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in the future. It was further held that the object of compassionate appointment is to enable the family to get over the financial crisis that it faces at the time of the death of sole breadwinner, compassionate appointment cannot be claimed or offered after a signficant lapse of time and after the crisis is over."
In the above legal background this Court proceeds to consider the above referred prayers made in this writ petition.
Undisputed facts of the present case are that the father of the petitioner died in harness on 28.12.2011 while working on the post of Veh Mech (ERG) in the unit of 508 Army Base Work Shop, Fort, Allahabad.
On 21.1.2018, mother of the petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment of the petitioner thereafter certain communications were exchanged and thereafter the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the impugned order dated 30.6.2018 communicating that the claim of the petitioner was considered by the Board, but the petitioner failed to secure sufficient marks. In the said communication, an opportunity was granted to the petitioner to submit a fresh application.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that thereafter the petitioner submitted a fresh application however, till date the same has not been considered.
As held in paragraph 8 of Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman and Managing Director and Others (supra) and also considering that the father of the petitioner died in the year 2011 and the petitioner is seeking claim for compassionate appointment after more than one decade, therefore, the need for compassionate appointment is not in existence. The very purpose of compassionate appointment is to tide over the immediate crisis which is not in existence, therefore, this Court cannot pass a mandamus to appoint the petitioner or to pass a direction to consider his claim for compassionate appointment, therefore, the prayers made in this writ petition cannot be allowed. However, in the impugned order itself liberty has been granted to the petitioner to submit a fresh application which the petitioner has already done, therefore, it is up to the respondents to consider it or not.
Court cannot pass any order or direction or issue a writ of mandamus for consideration of such application.
In view of the above, writ petition has no merit and accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 11.7.2022
SB
