Court No. - 33

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7285 of 2021

Petitioner :- Soham Prakash Singh

Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others

Counsel for Petitioner :- Umesh Vats,Devendra Kumar

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.

Petitioner's claim for grant of compassionate appointment

has been rejected vide order dated 22.1.2021 which is

assailed in this petition. This order records that petitioner's

father died on 5.12.1992 and after expiry of 16 years of

his death, an application for compassionate appointment

has been filed. Reliance is placed upon the succession

certificate to observe that other family members were

available who could apply for compassionate appointment.

It is in this circumstance that petitioner's application for

compassionate appointment has been rejected holding it to

be grossly delayed.

It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner was a

minor at the time of death of his father and the authorities

entertained the delayed application which ought not to

have been rejected. It is also submitted that even if his

claim is rejected, he ought to be compensated by awarding

exemplary damages.

Petition is opposed by th learned standing counsel.

It is settled that compassionate appointment is offered with

the object of enabling the family in distress to tide over the

sudden difficulty created due to death of the sole bread

earner and it cannot be claimed as a matter of right.

In the facts of the present case, it is not disputed that on

the death of the employee concerned other family

members were available who

could apply for

compassionate appointment. No such application was filed,

then. Compassionate appointment otherwise is not a right

for which petitioner can wait upto his majority to make an

application. No circumstance is placed before the Court

which may justify non moving of timely application or filing

of delayed application after 16 years. Merely because such

claim was entertained cannot be a ground to claim

damages.

Prayer in that regard is wholly misconceived. No error is

shown in the order dated 22.1.2021 which may require any

interference by this Court.

Dismissed, accordingly.

Order Date :- 28.7.2021

n.u.