Heard learned counsel for the parties.
By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks for quashing of the order dated 23.4.2019, whereby prayer for compassionate appointment made by the petitioner has been rejected noticing that the brother of the petitioner was given appointment on compassionate ground after death of their father in the year 2010.
The petitioner herein claims to be dependent of his deceased brother (died in the year 2015) who was unmarried. As on date, the petitioner's parents are not alive and the petitioner is the only member of the family concerned.
In the application seeking compassionate appointment and in various paragraphs of the writ petition, it is sought to be contended that the petitioner has no source of income nor he is employed. He was solely dependent upon his deceased brother and is suffering financial crunch on account of his death.
In view of the said submission, a pointed query was made by the Court as to the age of the petitioner which was disclosed as 38 years. It was then asked as to why the petitioner did not work for such a long inning of life.
To this query, learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of argument has accepted that the petitioner possess certain piece of land on which he was doing agricultural work. However, there is nothing on record with regard to the agricultural land of the petitioner or the occupation which he had taken after death of his father in the year 2010 to sustain himself.
The stand of the petitioner that he remained unemployed throughout after death of his father in the year 2010 and was wholly dependent on his unmarried brother is, therefore, not accepted.
The petitioner being 38 years of age must have been doing some job to earn his livelihood. He, therefore, cannot be said to be wholly dependent on his deceased brother. The inclusion of "unmarried brother" in the definition of "Family" of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependent of Government Servant Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974, therefore, would be of no help to the petitioner.
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 can be understood that the petitioner or his family had faced financial crisis on the death of his father in the year 2010 but they have overcome the same as younger brother of the petitioner got employment on compassionate ground. The petitioner did not make any objection to his appointment rather gave 'no objection' in his favour. It is not known as to why the petitioner though being himself unemployed gave 'no objection' to his younger brother. It is also not known as to why the petitioner remained unemployed and solely dependent on his younger brother.
The writ petition is completely silent about these aspects of the matter. The averments in paragraph nos. '23' and '24' of the writ petition are only vague averments which cannot be considered to take any exception to the reasons given in the order impugned.
Reference made by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the judgment of this Court in Km. Suman Kumari D/o Late Raghunath Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh Through Secretary (Irrigation) reported in 2005 (4) AWC 3257, is of no help.
For the aforesaid, 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.
Order Date :- 22.8.2019/Brijesh