Pradeep Kumar Verma vs State Of U.P. Through Principal ...
2022 Latest Caselaw 15148 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 17
 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3283 of 2011
 
Petitioner :- Pradeep Kumar Verma
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Principal Secy.Panchayati Raj Dept.Lko
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- A.M.Tripathi
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.

Heard Sri Anurag Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned State Counsel appearing for the respondents.

The present petition has been filed for the following main reliefs:-

"i) to issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS thereby commanding/directing the opposite parties to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment/adjustment in the department on the post of Gram Panchayat Adhikari in view of the letter dated 27.01.2011 and pay him all other consequential service benefits each and every month.

ii) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of CERTIORARI thereby quashing the order dated 17.03.2009 passed by the opposite party no. 3 as contained in Annexure No. 6 to this Writ Petition."

It is submitted that the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment under U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1974') and vide order dated 16.08.2004 passed by the District Panchayat Raj Officer, Balrampur, he was provided appointment on compassionate ground on Class IV post and his claim for appointment on the post of Gram Panchayat Adhikari was rejected on 17.03.2009. Thereafter, based upon the letter dated 27.01.2011 the petitioner has approached this Court seeking reliefs quoted above, in the year 2011.

Opposing the claim of the petitioner it is stated that the delay and laches with regard to filing of present petition for appointment on the post of Gram Panchayat Adhikari has not been explained in this petition as such the petition is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on the judgment of Division Bench of this Court passed in the case of Mohd. Faheem Versus Union of India, Department of Post and Telegraphs in Service Bench No. 18065 of 2017.

In addition to the above it is stated that the prayer sought in the present petition is not liable to be acceded as the petitioner has no right to claim compassionate appointment on particular post and he is already working on Class IV post. Reliance has been placed on the judgment passed in the case of Narendra Kumar Upadhyay Versus State of U.P. (Special Appeal No. 1601of 2012) decided on 22.10.2021, in which the Division Bench of this Court considered in detail the principles and object of Compassionate appointment and concluded as under:?

"35. We have discussed above in detail the case of the petitioner/appellant and the principles of law on compassionate appointment laid down by this Court and by Hon'ble Supreme Court, which are briefly summarized as under:?

(a) A provision for compassionate appointment is an exception to the principle that there must be an equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. The exception to be constitutionally valid has to be carefully structured and implemented in order to confine compassionate appointment to only those situations which subserve the basic object and purpose which is sought to be achieved;

(b) The object of compassionate appointment is to enable the family of the deceased - employee to tied over the sudden financial crisis due to death of the bread earner which has left the family in penury and without means of livelihood, it is an exception to the normal rule of public employment, it is a concession. The basic intention to grant compassionate appointment is that on the death of the employee, his family is not deprived of the means of livelihood. It can not be claimed by way of inheritance. Compassionate Appointment can not be treated as a Bonanza. It is not disbursement of gift. It is not sympathy syndrome. It is meant to provide minimum relief for meeting immediate hardship to save the bereaved family from sudden financial crisis due to death of sole bread winner. If employer finds that Financial arrangement made for family subsequent to death of the employee is adequate members of the family can not insist for compassionate appointment.

(c) Mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public 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 a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family.

(d) In determining as to whether the family is in financial crisis, all relevant aspects must be borne in mind including the income of the family; its liabilities, the terminal benefits received by the family; the age, dependency and marital status of its members, together with the income from any other sources of employment;

(e) There is no general or vested right to compassionate appointment. Compassionate appointment can be claimed only where a scheme or rules provide for such appointment. Where such a provision is made in an administrative scheme or statutory rules, compassionate appointment must fall strictly within the scheme or, as the case may be, the rules;

(f) Where a long lapse of time has occurred since the date of death of the deceased employee, the sense of immediacy for seeking compassionate appointment would cease to exist and this would be a relevant circumstance which must weigh with the authorities in determining as to whether a case for the grant of compassionate appointment has been made out;

(g) An applicant has no right to claim compassionate appointment in a particular class or group. It is not for conferring status on the family. A candidate for compassionate appointment has no right to any particular post of choice. He can only claim to be considered.

(h) The dependent/applicant cannot seek the appointment on compassionate ground on the higher post than what was held by the deceased employee as a matter of right, on the ground that he/she is eligible fulfilling the eligibility criteria of such higher post.

(i) Provisions for the grant of compassionate appointment do not constitute a reservation of a post in favour of a member of the family of the deceased employee. Hence, there is no general right which can be asserted to the effect that a member of the family who was a minor at the time of death would be entitled to claim compassionate appointment upon attaining majority. Where the rules provide for a period of time within which an application has to be made, the operation of the rule is not suspended during the minority of a member of the family.

(j) The norms prevailing on the date of the consideration of the application should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment.

(k) Neither the Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules for the post. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden financial crisis.

(l) Rule 5 mandates that ordinarily, an application for compassionate appointment must be made within five years of the date of death of the deceased employee. The power conferred by the first proviso is a discretion to relax the period in a case of undue hardship and for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner;

(m) The burden lies on the applicant, where there is a delay in making an application within the period of five years to establish a case on the basis of reasons and a justification supported by documentary and other evidence. It is for the State Government after considering all the facts to take an appropriate decision. The power to relax is in the nature of an exception and is conditioned by the existence of objective considerations to the satisfaction of the government;

(n) The father of the petitioner died on 07.07.1991 when petitioner was aged about eight years. He applied for compassionate appointment sometime in the year 2006-2007 and the District Basic Education Officer granted appointment unauthorisedly, without grant of relaxation by the Competent Authority/State Government. Thus, the petitioner unauthorisedly and in contravention of the government order, without relaxation of period for submission of application, obtained appointment on compassionate ground, which is nullity. Therefore, the appointing authority has lawfully cancelled the order of appointment of the petitioner. Hence impugned order of the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any manifest error of law."

Considering the aforesaid particularly that an applicant has no right to claim compassionate appointment in a particular post or class or group, this Court is of the view that the claim of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Gram Panchayat Adhikari is not sustainable. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed.

Order Date :- 31.10.2022

Jyoti/-