Back
2004 Supreme(All) 858
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
A.K. Yog, J.
Ram Pratap Singh
Versus
State of U.P.
Civil Misc. Writ Petition 27625 of 2001
Decided On : 30 April 2004
Civil Misc. Writ Petition 27625 Of 2001
H.S.N.Tripathi, R.K.Avasthi, R.P.Goyal, RAKESH TRIPATHI, Salil Kumar Rai,
Compassionate appointment should be based on genuine financial need and eligibility, and should not override statutory or constitutional provisions.
Headnote:
COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT - GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE - UTTAR PRADESH recruitment OF DEPENDENTS OF GOVERNMENT SERVANT DYING-IN-HARNESS rules, 1974 - 256, 300-A of the constitution of India - 14, 16 of the Constitution of India
Fact of the Case:
Anil Kumar Singh, a government employee, died in service. His son sought compassionate appointment, claiming financial distress for the family. The court found that the son was not eligible for appointment at the time of his father's death and that the family was not in distress as the son had completed his graduation and there was no mention of financial hardship in the representations made.
Finding of the Court:
The petitioner was not entitled to the requested reliefs due to lack of eligibility and failure to establish family distress.
Issues: Eligibility for compassionate appointment, financial distress of the family, constitutional validity of compassionate appointment
Ratio Decidendi: Compassionate appointment is intended to mitigate immediate financial distress of a deceased employee's family. The appointment should be based on genuine financial need and eligibility, and should not override statutory or constitutional provisions. The court emphasized the need for proper financial support and the avoidance of arbitrary appointments.
Final Decision: The petitioner was not entitled to the requested reliefs for failing to establish eligibility and financial distress.
( 1 ) NOTICE of the writ petition was received by the office of the Chief Standing Counsel, High court, Allahabad, on July 19, 2001. Case was listed before the Court on several occasions but no counter-affidavit filed by the respondents. No request made to file it till this stage of hearing.
( 2 ) LEARNED Counsels for the parties agreed that the writ petition be decided finally at the admission stage as contemplated under Chapter XXII, Rule 2-IInd Proviso, Rules of Court, 1952. FACTS:
( 3 ) ONE Anil Kumar Singh (father of the petitioner) working as Assistant Bhumi Sanrakshak inspector in Government Department of State of Uttar Pradesh, died on 15. 10. 1998. His son, ram Pratap Singh (petitioner before us), sought compassionate appointment on the ground of his father dying-in-harness by filing an application on 5. 4. 1999, addressed to Soil Conservation officer, Sharda Nahar Pranali, Pilibhit under relevant Rules, e. g. , "the UTTAR PRADESH recruitment OF DEPENDENTS OF GOVERNMENT SERVANT DYING-IN-HARNESS rules, 1974 (Annexure--1 to the writ petition without the enclosures mentioned in it ). The petitioner urged that, apart from him and his mother, he had two minor brothers namely, ikshvaku Singh and Vineet Singh and that his family was in pitiable financial condition.
( 4 ) PETITIONER sent another representation dated 26. 4. 2001, addressed to the Director, Agricultural u. P. stating that he had applied on 5. 4. 199, for appointment under dying-in-Harness quota and also that in the past he had sent reminders dated 25. 11. 1999, 19. 4. 2000, 19. 8. 2000 and 13. 12. 2000, to the concerned department but to no avail (Annexure-2 to the writ petition ).
( 5 ) COMMISSIONER/administrator, Sharda Sahayak Samadesh Kshettra Vikas Pariyojana, U. P. , lucknow/respondent No. 3 sent letter dated 27. 1. 1998 to the Bhumi Sanrakshak Adhikari, sharda Nahar Pranali Bilsanda, Pilibhit directing for payment of pension, gratuity, Insurance, provident Fund, etc. after submitting requisite papers in required proforma. Matter of compassionate appointment, according to him, was to be dealt by the concerned Agriculture department to which the deceased employee belonged. The respondent No. 4/soil Conservation officer, Sharda Nahar Pranali, also sent a letter to the Director, Agriculture, U. P. for consideration of petitioners" application for compassionate appointment in Government Service on compassionate ground under relevant Rules (Annexure-4 to the writ petition ).
( 6 ) SIMILAR letter dated April 29, 2000 was written by Agriculture Directorate, U. P. to Bhumi sanrakshak Adhikari/respondent No. 4 and certain queries were made but no reply received.
( 7 ) BEING aggrieved, petitioner filed present writ petition under Article 226, Constitution of India on the ground, inter alia amongst others, that he be appointed in the Department of Agriculture the State Government on compassionate ground; inaction on the part of the respondents in the matter was arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14, 19 (1) and (g), 21, 256 and 300-A of the constitution of India.
( 8 ) THE petitioner, in the writ petition, prays :-" (a) to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to issue letter of appointment in favour of petitioner for the post of accountant in view of his qualification on compassionate ground and to allow him to join and pay salary along with other emolument permissible under law. (b) to issue a writ, order or direction which this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (c) to award the cost of the writ petition to the petitioner. " reasons + CONCLUSION :
( 9 ) PETITIONER is not entitled to the aforesaid reliefs for following reasons.
( 10 ) IN the affidavit (sworn in July, 2001 by Ram Pratap Singh, the petitioner himself) filed in support of the present writ petition, the petitioner has mentioned his age about 20 years. It shows that the petitioner was
