Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1, Sri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2, Sri Shivam Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.3.
Grievance of the petitioner is that the mother of the petitioner while working on the post of Assistant Teacher in Poorva Madhyamik Vidyalaya Kewali Mahima Block Salon, District Raebareli, died while in service on 7.6.2013. The father of the petitioner moved an application that his son is minor and on attaining the age of majority, he should be considered for the appointment under Dying in Harness Rules.
Learned counsel for the petitioner vide Annexure-3 invited attention of this Court that on attaining the age of majority, the petitioner applied vide application dated 12.4.2018 and no order whatsoever was passed for consideration of his claim for the appointment on compassionate ground. He is approaching continuously but till date, he has not been granted appointment on compassionate ground. He submits that in case direction is issued for consideration of his claim and to pass appropriate order within a reasonable period, justice would be met.
On the other hand, Sri Ajay Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2 invited attention of this Court on the family register (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) and pointed out that in the family register, the year of birth of the petitioner has been shown to be 1992, therefore, on the date of death of mother of the petitioner, the petitioner was major, therefore, the entire claim in the writ petition is based on incorrect facts. He next submits that the person who has approached this Court with unclean hands, is not entitled for relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He submits that there is inordinate delay in approaching the competent authority seeking employment on compassionate ground and the purpose to make compassionate appointment is to meet out the hardship existing in the family due to death of the bread earner of the family.
I have considered the submission advanced and perused the material on record.
It is evident by bare perusal of the family register, which has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ petition that at the time of death in the year 2013, the petitioner was major. It is not the reservation to the family members of the deceased employee that when he will become eligible, post shall be reserved for his appointment. In catena of decisions, this Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the appointment on compassionate ground is provided for immediate relief due to death of the employee on the ground of harness.
On perusal of the record of the petition, it is evident that the petitioner was major at the time of death of his mother, therefore, the relief claimed by means of the present writ petition cannot be granted on the ground of inordinate delay in approaching this Court for issuance of direction for consideration of claim for the appointment on compassionate ground.
Accordingly, the writ petition is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 11.2.2021 Gautam