Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13433 of 2019 Petitioner :- Vinay Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Karan Singh Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.
Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J.
The present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 9.10.2014 as well as the order dated 27.5.2019, whereby the request of the petitioner for appointment under Dying-in- harness Rules has been rejected.
The contention leading to the filing of the present writ petition, in brief, is that the petitioner claims to be adopted son of one Late Mitthu Lal Yadav. It is claimed that the said Mitthu Lal Yadav died on 29.8.1993 and at that time the age of the petitioner was three years. It is claimed that the wife of Late Mitthu Lal Yadav applied for family pension and was given family pension for some time, thereafter in the year 2009, an application was filed by the mother of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment to the son namely, the petitioner.
It is claimed that the mother of the petitioner also died on 3.5.2012, thereafter the petitioner claims to have filed a representation on 16.8.2012 before the respondent no. 3 claiming the appointment under the Dying-in-harness Rules. As no reply was received, the petitioner moved an application on 23.4.2014 requesting for appointment on compassionate ground. It is claimed that the same was not considered and at the time of filing of the petition, the age of the petitioner was 26 years.
It is argued that vide order dated 27th May, 2019, the request of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that earlier vide order dated 9th October, 2014, the request had already been rejected. The said order dated 9.10.2014 has also been challenged in the present petition. A perusal of the said order dated 9.10.2014 reveals that the case of the petitioner was considered and was not found fit to be appointed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that no reasons for rejecting the application has been disclosed in the order dated 9.10.2014. He further argues that as the petitioner was not aware of the said order, he kept on applying, which resulted in passing of the order dated 27th May, 2019, once again rejecting the application merely on the ground that earlier an order dated 9.10.2014 had been passed. Learned counsel for the petitioner argues that no reasons whatsoever have been recorded in the orders rejecting the claim of the petitioner, as such the petition deserves to be allowed with directions upon the respondents to grant the appointment on compassionate ground to the petitioner on account of death of the father of the petitioner.
The facts, that are undisputed, are that the father of the petitioner died in the year 1993 and the present petition was filed in the year 2019, thus almost 26 years have passed from the date of death of the father of the petitioner. It is well settled that the grant of compassionate appointment is not a matter of right and is discretionary and is to tide over immediate financial crisis faced by the family on account of the death of the earning member of the family.
In view of the fact that more than 28 years have elapsed since the death of the father of the petitioner, no good grounds for exercise of discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are made out.
The writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to apply for appointment under the normal rules of appointment.
Order Date :- 21.9.2021 S. Rahman