Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J.
Mohd. Gulzar Khan - Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Others - Respondents
Writ - A No. 10469 of 2019
Decided On : 09-02-2023
For the Petitioner: Manu Saxena.
For the Respondent: C.S.C., Vijai Kumar Srivastava.
The main legal point established is that the scope of compassionate appointment is to tide over immediate financial crisis, and it can be considered based on specific circumstances even if submitted after the prescribed period, as long as the object of compassionate appointment still survives.
Headnote:
Compassionate Appointment - Minor Petitioner - The court set aside the rejection of the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment and remanded the matter back to the concerned authority to take a fresh decision, considering the specific circumstances and the judgments cited by the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's mother died in harness when the petitioner was a minor. The petitioner filed an application for compassionate appointment after attaining majority, which was rejected on the ground of being submitted after the prescribed period of 5 years.
Finding of the Court:
The court set aside the rejection and remanded the matter back to the concerned authority for a fresh decision, considering the specific circumstances and relevant judgments.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment, submitted after the prescribed period of 5 years, could be considered given the specific circumstances of the case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the scope of compassionate appointment is to tide over immediate financial crisis and considered the specific circumstances of the petitioner, including the care provided by the maternal uncle and aunty after the mother's death, and the timely filing of the application after attaining majority.
Final Decision: The court directed the concerned respondents to take an appropriate decision on the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment within six weeks.
JUDGMENT :
1. Mother of petitioner died in harness on 14.11.2007. His father had earlier expired in year 2005. At the time of death, petitioner was aged about 10 years and 7 months and his sister was aged about 9 years. Both being minor were taken care by their maternal uncle and aunty.
2. Petitioner completed his XIIth examination in 2014 and also passed B.Com. and attained majority in April, 2015. Petitioner filed an application for compassionate appointment with prayer to relax period of 5 years in terms of provisions of Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (for short “Rules”). Matter remained with respondents for consideration which forced petitioner to file a writ petition bearing No. 15539 of 2018 which was disposed of by an order dated 23.07.2018 with a direction to take a decision for compassionate appointment and to relax bar of 5 years for appointment on compassionate ground.
3. Above referred order was complied with, however, by impugned order dated 21.01.2019, claim of petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected on ground that it was submitted after more than 5 years.
4. Sri Manu Saxena, learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that in facts and circumstances of present case where petitioner was minor at the time of death of his mother has submitted application for compassionate appointment as soon as he attained majority, therefore, prescribed period of 5 years can be condoned and for that he has placed reliance upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in State of U.P. and others vs. Antariksha Singh, 2019 (6) ADJ 430 as well as Division Bench judgment of this Court in Iqbal Khan vs. State of U.P. and others, 2022 SCC OnLine All 189 and a judgment of Supreme Court in Ganesh Shankar Shukla vs. State of U.P. and another, Civil Appeal No. 4755 / 2022 (SLP (C) No. 3528 of 2022) decided on 15.07.2022.
5. Above submissions are opposed by S/Sri Vijay Kumar Srivastava and Shailendra Singh, learned counsel for respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 and have submitted that petitioner cannot claim compassionate appointment as a right even after expiry of more than 5 years. Scope to grant compassionate appointment is to tide over immediate financial crisis and considering that death of mother of petitioner took place in 2007, therefore, claim of petitioner for compassionate appointment after a period of 15 years cannot be considered.
6. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused record.
7. Facts are not in dispute that mother of petitioner died in year 2007 and 15 years have already been expired. In Antariksha Singh, Iqbal Khan and Ganesh Shankar (supras), relaxation has been granted on time limit of 5 years, however, petitioner has to come up with a specific case that there was a undue hardship and that object of compassionate appointment still survives.
8. In present case, by impugned order, respondents have taken a view that petitioner has not shown any circumstances to relax the time limit of 5 years, however, it appears that certain facts which are narrated in this writ petition, such as after death of his mother, his care was undertaken by his maternal uncle and aunty as well as immediately after attaining majority, he has filed application for compassionate appointment.
9. Law is settled that scope of compassionate appointment is to tide over immediate financial crisis.
10. In these circumstances, impugned order dated 21.01.2019 is set aside and matter is remanded back to concerned authority to take a fresh decision after considering all submissions as well as after taking note of judgments of Antariksha Singh, Iqbal Khan and Ganesh Shankar (supras) as well as in Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman and Managing Director and others vs. Parden Oraon, 2021 SCC Online SC 299 wherein it has been held that “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 bre
