Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for State.
The instant petition has been filed challenging the order dated 12.04.2016 passed by the respondent no. 3 a copy of which is annexure 1 to the petition whereby the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected on the ground that the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of rule 2(c) of U. P. Recruitment of Dependent of Government Servant Dying-in-harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred as 'Rules 1974'.
Learned counsel for petitioner contends that the petitioner is the grandson of the deceased employee i.e. his grandmother(dadi), who died in harness on 10.12.2010 while working under the respondents.
It is contended that after the death of the grandmother the petitioners' father, who is alive, has given an affidavit that he has no objection to the compassionate appointment of the petitioner, a copy of the said affidavit is annexure 4 to the petition. Learned counsel for petitioner contends that once the father of the petitioner is not willing to take the job on compassionate ground, as such the petitioner in the capacity of being a grandson is eligible for being appointed on compassionate grounds.
In this regard reliance has been placed on notification dated 09.02.2007, a copy of which is annexure 9 to the petition wherein '1974 Rules' have been amended to include 'grandson' in the category of 'family' as defined under the provisions of Section 2(c) of the '1974 Rules'.
On the other hand learned Standing Counsel submits that the amendment made in 09.02.2007 so far as it pertains to recruitment of grandson on compassionate ground would only be invoked in case none of the relatives of the deceased government servants are available or are available but are unable to take up employment on account of being physically and mentally handicapped. Learned counsel for respondents contends that in the instant case the father of the petitioner is not willing to take up the job and thus the condition of grandson to be appointed would not be applicable in the present case.
Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the records.
From the perusal of records it is apparent that the grandmother of the petitioner was employed under the respondents and died in harness. The petitioner staked his claim for being appointed on compassionate ground in the capacity of being grandson and his application has been turned down by the respondents vide impugned order dated 12.04.2016 on the ground that the petitioner cannot be appointed on the compassionate grounds.
So far as the notification dated 09.02.2007, upon which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for petitioner whereby the definition of 'family' as indicated in Rule 2(c) of the '1974 Rules' is concerned, the perusal of the same would indicate that 'grandson' is eligible for claiming compassionate appointment in case other family members are not available or if available they are physically and mentally handicapped.
In the instant case admittedly the father of the petitioner has given a no objection to the appointment of the petitioner meaning thereby the father of the petitioner, who is the son of the deceased employee, is not willing to take compassionate appointment. Thus the condition for compassionate appointment would clearly not be applicable in as much as though the dependent is available of the deceased employee yet he is not willing to take compassionate appointment.
Considering the aforesaid there is no reason for this Court to interfere in the matter and the petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 19.8.2021 J.K. Dinkar