Surya Prakash Mishra vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 7029 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 18
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2126 of 2023
 

 
Petitioner :- Surya Prakash Mishra
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Higher Edu., Lko. And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dadu Ram Shukla (D.R. Shukla ),Manoj Kumar Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
 

 
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioner stating that the father of the petitioner had died in the year 2004 and subsequently, the petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment, however, as the same was not being considered, the petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.1069 (SS) of 2009 which was disposed of vide order dated 17.02.2009 commanding the respondents to consider the application in accordance with law.

It is argued that initially, the respondents were delaying in consideration, however, subsequently an order came to be passed on 26.09.2022 holding that the father of the petitioner was an employee of the respondents. It is argued that despite sufficient time having been elapsed, the petitioner has not been granted the appointment on compassionate appointment. He places reliance on the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of State of U.P. and others vs Virendra Pal Singh; [2022 940) LCD 2529] as well as in the case of Gomti Devi vs State of UP. and others; 2023 (1) ALJ 251.

Considering the fact that the father of the petitioner died in the year 2004, issuing directions after a lapse of about 19 years is contrary to the entire scheme of the compassionate appointment which is to ensure that family can come out from the financial distress after the death of bread earner.

The judgment cited by the petitioner in the case of Virendra Pal Singh (Supra) has no applicability to the facts of the present case as in the said case, the claim of the petitioner was made after attaining the age of majority and the same was rejected being time barred. Similarly, the judgment rendered in the case of Gomti Devi (Supra) has no relevance as in the said case, the authority had not taken into consideration the expenditure which the family of the deceased employee was required to incur.

In the present case, there is an inordinate delay of 19 years and granting any relief of appointment on compassionate ground at this stage would be contrary to the spirit of the Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974. It is well settled that the appointment under the compassionate ground is not a right and is an exception carved out under Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India.

No relief as claimed by the petitioner can be granted.

The writ petition is dismissed.

Order Date :- 3.3.2023

akverma