Dependents of deceased employees regularized posthumously are entitled to compassionate appointment, and authorities cannot reject claims based on arbitrary grounds or delay.

JUDGMENT :

Ajit Kumar, J.

1. Heard Ms. Jahnavi Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri P. K. Srivastava, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel representing the State respondents.

2. Petitioners before this Court are sons of late Raja Ram and Sahib Singh respectively, who were claimed to be permanent employees working in the establishment of Public Works Department at Firozabad where they died in harness.

3. It is on account of these sole bread earners of the family dying in harness that petitioners moved applications before the concerned competent respondent seeking compassionate appointment. Initially nothing progressed in the matter of their applications for compassionate appointment, so they jointly approached this Court vide Writ - A No.- 9253 of 2018, which stood disposed of holding the petitioners' fathers to be confirmed employee of the respondent establishment and hence petitioners' claims were held liable to be considered for compassionate appointment and accordingly, directions were issued to the petitioners to file representation along with the certified copy of this order and the Executive Engineer, Construction Division, Firozabad was directed to take decision thereupon. The relevant extract of the order of the Court dated 25th May, 2018 is reproduced hereunder:

“With reference to the judgment of the Division Bench of this court in State of U.P. and others vs. Kuldeep Thakur reported in 2017 (35) LCD 696, it is demonstrated by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the claim for appointment on compassionate ground of the dependents of the work charge employee to whom benefit of regularization had been extended after their death, can be considered.

In the light of the fact that the regular appointment was made in pursuance of the request made by the employees concerned and on the date of their death, the claims were pending consideration, it was held by the Division Bench that on an account of unfortunate circumstance of death of an employee, his claim for regularization does not get eclipsed nor it could be said to have abandoned.

In rebuttal, learned Standing Counsel only submits that the claim of the petitioners are delayed inasmuch their fathers had died in the year 2009 and 2010. It is contended that even if, it is accepted for a moment that the claim of the petitioners were materialized after regularization of their father, the regularization order being of the year 2012, after a period of six years, it is not open for the petitioners to seek appointment on compassionate ground as they are able to meet financial crisis on account of death of their father. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, it is more than apparent that the petitioners were repeatedly placing their claim for grant of compassionate appointment since after death of their father and till date, it has not been decided on the ground that their fathers were work charge employees, as such, the petitioners have no claim for consideration for grant of compassionate appointment.

The claim of the petitioner, thus, has not been addressed by the respondent on merits.

In view thereof, this Court does not find any for