Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 34852 of 2006 Petitioner :- Pankaj Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Gulab Chandra,Archna Singh Jadaun Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.
This petition challenges an order dated 5 September 2005 pursuant to which the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds has been negatived with the respondents taking the view that no case existed justifying the relaxation of the period of five years for entertaining an application for appointment on that basis in terms of the Government Order dated 13 May 2003.
Undisputedly the petitioner was a minor at the time when his father died in service on 8 December 1995. He is stated to have moved an application for being granted appointment on compassionate grounds on 12 December 2003. The Government Order dated 13 May 2003 which has been referred to in the order impugned provides that the period of five years could be relaxed only in a situation where the employee has died under extra ordinary circumstances while discharging duties. The father of the petitioner is stated to have died consequent to his heart malfunctioning. This clearly would not come within the ambit of extra ordinary circumstance and the view taken in this respect by the respondents does not merit any interference.
Additionally the Court bears in mind the principles enunciated by the Full Bench in Shiv Kumar Dubey Vs. State of U.P. & Ors [2014 (2) ADJ 312, wherein the following proposition was enunciated:
“(viii) Provisions for the grant of compassionate appointment do not constitute a reservation of a post in favour of a member of the family of the deceased employee. Hence, there is no general right which can be asserted to the effect that a member of the family who was a minor at the time of death would be entitled to claim compassionate appointment upon attaining majority. Where the rules provide for a period of time within which an application has to be made, the operation of the rule is not suspended during the minority of a member of the family.”
For the reasons recorded aforesaid and bearing in mind the principles enunciated in Shiv Kumar Dubey, the Court finds no ground warranting interference in the impugned order.
The writ petition is dismissed.
Order Date :- 29.1.2019 LA/-