Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12161 of 2021 Petitioner :- Pawan Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Suman Kumar Yadav,Vishnu Narayan Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Petitioner's mother was a Peon in the Paschimanchal Vidhyut Vitran Nigam, who is said to have died in harness on 4.1.2006. Petitioner's father has predeceased his mother. At the time of death of petitioner's mother, petitioner's age was about eleven years and after he attained the age of 21 years has moved an application for compassionate appointment which has been rejected by order impugned, dated 30th June, 2020 on the ground that claim for compassionate appointment is belated.
Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the provisions of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 have been adopted by the Corporation and, therefore, in the facts of the present case petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment for relaxation from five year limitation in making the application ought to have been referred to the State Government. Submission is that none was available in between to apply for compassionate appointment and the family continues to remain in penury.
Learned counsel for the respondents states that the authority concerned shall examine the matter afresh in light of the above observations.
The object of compassionate appointment is to enable the family in distress to tide over sudden difficulty. In a case where the parents have died and the child is a minor, it would be open for the applicant to seek exemption from the five years limitation prescribed in the Rules of 1974 and such claim would have to be examined with reference to the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in Shiv Kumar Dubey and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, reported in 2015 AIR (All) 47.
In somewhat similar facts and circumstances, the Supreme Court in the case of Hemant Kumar Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and others, decided on 20th August, 2018 has observed as under:-
"The petitioner's mother, an employee of the respondent, died in 1992. At that point of time, the petitioner was only 11 years old. Obviously, he could not have applied for compassionate appointment. The petitioner attained majority some time in 1999 and thereafter he applied for a post on compassionate grounds. The application was rejected on the ground that it was time barred.
Our attention has been drawn to the concerned regulation which says that such an application is to be made within a period of five years of the death of the employee.
It is true that the petitioner had applied for the post more than five years after the death of the mother. But it is also true that he could not have applied within a period of five years since he was a minor at that point of time. It cannot be the case of the respondent that a minor should apply and get employment in the State of U.P.
In our opinion, the reason given by the respondent for not considering the application of the petitioner cannot be sustained. The mere fact that the petitioner is getting family pension is also not a ground for not considering the application on compassionate grounds.
We, therefore, set aside the order passed by the High Court and remand the matter to the respondent to consider the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment within a period of six weeks from today.
The special leave petition stands disposed of."
In the facts and circumstances, this writ petition stands disposed of with a direction upon the Chief Engineer to refer the petitioner's claim for relaxation from five years limitation in making of application for compassionate appointment within a period of two months from today and the State Government shall take an appropriate decision in that regard with reference to the provisions contained under the Rules of 1974 within a further period of three months thereafter. Based upon the decision of the State Government, a fresh decision would be taken by the Chief Engineer within a period of four weeks, thereafter. In order to facilitate consideration to petitioner's claim, the order impugned, dated 30th June, 2020, stands quashed.
Order Date :- 23.9.2021 Ranjeet Sahu