Court No. - 32
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1030 of 2019 Appellant :- Girish Kumar Karwariya Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Om Prakash Chaube,Jitenrda Kumar Ojha Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sujeet Kumar Rai
Hon'ble Shashi Kant Gupta,J. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
This special appeal is preferred against the judgement and order dated 22.8.2019 passed in Writ Petition No.12707 of 2019, whereby the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected noticing that the brother of the petitioner was given appointment on compassionate ground after death of their father in the year 2010 who died in the year 2015 and appellant-petitioner has failed to show his 'dependency' on his deceased brother. While dismissing the writ petition, the learned Single Judge observed as under:
"The petitioner has failed to establish that he was wholly dependent on his younger brother who had died in the year 2015, after the death of his father in the year 2010.
As the 'dependency' is the main factor for grant of compassionate appointment, petitioner having failed to establish so, no interference can be made in the order impugned.
The writ petition dismissed, accordingly."
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The learned Single Judge has rightly observed that the object and purpose of compassionate appointment is not to give appointment rather to support the non-earning family members of the deceased employee so that they may overcome immediate financial crisis faced by them. It is also noticeable that the father of the appellant-petitioner died on 01.12.2010 while he was in service and the petitioner-appellant despite being the eldest son, did not claim to be appointed on compassionate appointment. On the other hand, he also gave no objection in favour of his younger brother who was later on appointed.
Perusal of the order shows that the father of the petitioner was working as Class-II Officer in the respondent Bank and he died on 01.12.2010 while being in service. Thereafter, the younger brother of the petitioner was appointed on compassionate ground who also died in the year 2018 and he was unmarried.
According to the learned counsel for the appellant, appellant's parents are not alive and the appellant is the only bread earner of his family aged about 38 years having wife and a daughter.
No sufficient reason has been given by the learned counsel for the appellant as to why the appellant-petitioner did not work for such a long time. However, the petitioner-appellant before the writ court had accepted that he has certain piece of land on which he was doing agriculture, therefore, the stand of the petitioner-appellant that he is unemployed and was wholly dependent upon his brother is absolutely unacceptable. Moreover, it is presumed that the appellant-petitioner being 38 years of age must have been doing some job to earn his livelihood. The amendment made in the definition of "Family" of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependent of Government Servant Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974, including "unmarried brother" would not in anyway help the appellant-petitioner for being considered for compassionate appointment.
Learned counsel for the appellant is not able to answer about the aforesaid aspects of the matter.
Learned Single Judge has rightly came to the conclusion that the petitioner failed to establish that he was wholly dependent on his younger brother who had died in the year 2015, after the death of his father in the year 2010. As the 'dependency' is the main factor for grant of compassionate appointment, petitioner having failed to establish so, no interference can be made in the order impugned.
The special appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date:-26.9.2019 SB