Back
2016 Supreme(All) 706
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : B. AMIT STHALEKAR, J.
ARUN KUMAR .....Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS .....Respondents
(Civil Misc.Writ Petition No. 21037 of 2016, decided on 10th May, 2016)
Counsel :
Santosh Kumar Shukla and Ravindra Kumar for the Petitioner; C.S.C. and Mrigraj Singh for the Respondents.
Headnote:Appointment—Compassionate Appointment—Son claim on mother death—His claim that his one daughter is studying in B.Sc., second daughter has taken admission in B.T.C. Training Course and son is studying in Class IX Standard—By itself shows that he is not dependent of his mother—In absence of proof of dependency, his claim rightly refused—Appointment on compassionate ground—Is not hereditary—It is right of dire financial straits. [Para 4]
Result; Petition Dismissed.
Hon’ble B. Amit Sthalekar, J.—Heard Sri Santosh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Mrigraj Singh, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 & 3 and Sri Rakesh Pratap Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent No. 1.
2. The petitioner is seeking appointment on compassionate ground.
3. According to the petitioner his father was posted as Headmaster in the Primary School and retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.6.2008 and thereafter died on 23.3.2014. The mother of the petitioner was working as Headmistress in the Primary School Udaipurdipi, Block Khutahan, District Jaunpur and she died while still in service on 12.5.2014. In paragraph 8 of the writ petition it is stated that the petitioner’s one daughter is studying B.Sc. and his second daughter has taken admission in the B.T.C. Training Course and his son is studying in Class IXth Standard and therefore, his family is facing financial crisis.
4. The petitioner is 49 years of age. The question is if the one daughter of the petitioner is studying B.Sc. and his second daughter has taken admission in the B.T.C. Training Course and his son is studying in Class IX Standard and he is also 49 years of age how can he said to be the dependant of his mother particularly when he is 49 years of age himself. It does not sound probable that the petitioner was dependant upon his mother. Besides, his own two daughters and son would be dependent upon him therefore, it is ludicrous to suggest that the petitioner is himself dependent upon his mother. At the age of 49 the petitioner would have been expected to take care of his mother rather that claim himself to be a dependent upon his mother. For the same reason the averments of paragraph 8 of the writ petition hardly come to the aid of the petitioner. It appears that this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming appointment on compassionate ground as a hereditary right rather than dire financial straits.
5. I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed.
——————
