JUDGMENT D.P. Singh, J.
1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. This petition is directed against an order dated 22.4.2006 by which the claim of regular appointment of the petitioner has been rejected.
2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner does not propose to file any rejoinder affidavit and has prayed that the writ petition may be disposed off finally under the Rules of the Court. Thus, the petition is being finally decided with the consent of the parties.
3. Father of the petitioner was working as seasonal clerk in Cane Development Union Limited, Mawana in district Meerut when he died in harness on 7th April, 1993. On the application of the petitioner he was appointed as a seasonal clerk vide order dated 19.3.1994 on compassionate ground. The petitioner joined and started working and receiving salary. He made representations for being given a permanent appointment as clerk stating that by mistake he has been given seasonal appointment. When no action was taken in spite of the alleged recommendation, he preferred Writ Petition No. 10523 of 2005 claiming appointment in the permanent establishment. The petition was finally disposed off vide order dated 22.2.2006 with a direction to decide his representation. In pursuance thereof the impugned order has been passed stating that the petitioner was given seasonal appointment in 1994 and he never raised any objection at the time of joining.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has firstly urged that all appointment on compassionate ground are necessarily made in permanent establishment. The petitioner has failed to point out any rule or regulation to support his contention. The object of giving compassionate appointment is to help the bereaved family of a deceased breadwinner to tide over the financial crises occasioned due to the sudden death. Such appointments are de hors the rules but have been saved on compassionate grounds from the principles of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. This method of appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and a person cannot claim a higher status or salary than that of a deceased breadwinner. Under Regulation 3 of the U.P. Cane Cooperative Service Regulations, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations) members of the service have been classified in various categories and the seasonal staff is at the bottom of the said category. The pay scale of the regular staff and salary of seasonal staff has also been provided in Regulation 4. A perusal whereof shows that while the regular staff is entitled to regular pay scale together with increments etc., the seasonal staff is entitled to only fixed salary. Allowances are admissible to the regular staff and comparatively those given to the seasonal staff are minimal. A perusal of Regulations 22, 23 and 26 would show that seasonal staff are to be appointed subject to the availability of work in a particular season but their services can be terminated on a week's notice in view of Regulation 34. Admittedly, father of the petitioner was a seasonal employee, who was working subject to the limitations as noticed hereinabove, thus, the petitioner cannot claim as a matter of right appointment on compassionate basis in the regular establishment.
5. It is then urged that the petitioner is entitled for absorption/promotion to the regular cadre under Regulation 40 and in support thereof he has relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in the case of Netrapal Singh v. Regional Cane Service Authority and Ors. 2006 (2) E.S.C. 972. A perusal of the Regulations shows that a list in accordance with the seniority of the seasonal staff in both the categories namely, A and B has to be maintained separately. According to Regulation 40, 50% of the seasonal staff can be taken in regular appointment if they fulfill the requisite qualifications and are found fit in accordance to the seniority of such staff. There are no pleadings in the writ petition to show that any junior seasonal staff has been given regular appointment whilst in the counter affidavit a specific plea has been raised that there are large number of seasonal staff who are much senior to the petitioner and he cannot be allowed to supercede those senior seasonal staff. This factual averment has not been denied by filing rejoinder affidavit. In the case of Netrapal Singh (supra) junior persons had been given regular appointment in violation of Regulation 40. Thus, the Division Bench had merely observed that if the petitioner of that case is entitled under Regulation 40, he should be considered. In the present case since no such pleading has come on record, therefore, the said direction also cannot be given.
6. Lastly, it is urged that once Chandra Kishore who was given compassionate appointment as seasonal clerk was given permanent appointment after he filed a writ petition before this Court. No details have been given in the writ petition and In fact the case of Chandra Kishore related to a different cane union. In the counter affidavit also it Is stated that the case of Chandra Kishore is different from that of the petitioner. Thus, no parity can be claimed by the petitioner.
7. No other point has been urged.
8. For the reasons above, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected.