Court No. - 58
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 19942 of 2018 Petitioner :- Pradeep Chauhan Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Markanday Rai Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
This petition is directed against an order dated 9.11.2017, passed by the Commandant 42 Battalion, P.A.C., Naini, Allahabad, whereby petitioner's application for grant of exemption from limitation in filing of application for compassionate appointment has been rejected.
Perusal of the records would go to show that petitioner's father, who was a Constable in P.A.C., died on 22.4.2000 and an application for grant of compassionate appointment was filed on 10.3.2010 after the petitioner attained the age of majority. Since the application was not being considered, the petitioner approached this Court by filing a Writ Petition No.54573 of 2015, which came to be disposed of on 13.9.2015, directing the State Government to examine petitioner's claim for exemption from the limitation of five years contained under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, relying upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Shiv Kumar Dubey vs. State of U.P. and others, 2014 (3) AWC 3006.
Pursuant to the order dated 13.9.2015, petitioner's claim has been examined and the same has been rejected by the respondents, relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 and Sanjai Kumar vs. State of Bihar and others being Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.12876 of 2000. Operative portion of the order of the Apex Court in Sanjai Kumar (supra) is extracted hereinafter:-
"In fact such a view has been expressed in the very decision cited by the petitioner in Director of Education & Anr. v. Pushpendra Kumar & Ors. supra. It is also significant of notice that on the date when the first application was made by the petitioner on 02.06.88 the petitioner was a minor and was not eligile for appointment. This is conceded by the petitioner. There cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time as the petitioner becomes a major after a number of years, unless there is some specific provisions. The very basis of compassionate appointment is to see the family gets immediate relief."
The order impugned further records that petitioner's mother could have moved an application for compassionate appointment in case the family was in distress, but application was moved after long lapse of time in the year 2010, and therefore, the same has been rejected. It is also stated on behalf of the respondents that petitioner's mother is also receiving family pension of Rs.7,500/- per month.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner's mother was mentally unsound, and therefore, no application was filed at the time of death of petitioner's father.
Except to state that petitioner's mother was not in a sound mental state, there is no material brought on record to demonstrate such fact. Law is settled that grant of compassionate appointment is not a matter of right and is in the nature of concession. In the facts and circumstances, this Court finds that filing of application after nearly 10 years has not been explained. The family has otherwise not been able to substantiate that the distress caused on account of death of govt. servant has continued over the last more than 18 years.
In view of the aforesaid, rejection of application for grant of exemption in filing of application for compassionate appointment is not shown to be perverse or erroneous. Writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 18.9.2018 Ashok Kr.