Court No. - 58
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 65104 of 2013 Petitioner :- Smt. Yashoda Devi And Anr.
Respondent :- State Of U.P.& 3 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vivek Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Azad Khan,R.B.Pradhan
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
This writ petition is directed against an order dated 2nd November, 2013, whereby appointment on compassionate ground has been granted to respondent no.4, who happens to be the son of the first wife of deceased Ramdeen Prajapati, who was employed as a Class-IV employee in the Junior High School concerned. The authority concerned has placed reliance upon the statement of respondent no.4, whereby he had undertaken to take care of the petitioners also. It is in this context that appointment has been offered to respondent no.4.
This writ petition has been filed with the grievance that petitioners' claim for appointment ought to have been considered. However, while entertaining the writ petition following orders were passed in the matter on 10th December, 2013:-
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent nos.1 and 3, Sri R. B. Pradhan, learned counsel representing respondent no.2 and Sri Azad Khan, learned counsel representing respondent no.4.
All the respondents may file their counter affidavits within a month. Petitioner will have two weeks thereafter to file rejoinder affidavit.
List after expiry of aforesaid period.
In the meantime the appointment offered to respondent no.4 shall remain in force and the respondent no.4 as per undertaking given before the Competent Authority shall continue to transfer adequate amount from his salary for the maintenance of his step mother and step brother. In the event respondent no.4 does not comply with the undertaking given before the Competent Authority it will be open for the petitioner to approach this Court by filing appropriate application."
An application has been filed by the petitioners contending that respondent no.4 has not extended any benefit to the petitioners, and that he has failed to honour his commitment of taking care of other family members.
It is not in issue that respondent no.4 is the son of deceased Ramdeen Prajapati, who is stated to have died in harness. Being the heir of the deceased employee, he was entitled to be appointed on compassionate basis. The order passed by the District Basic Education Officer approving his appointment, therefore, suffers from no illegality.
The only issue raised by petitioners apparently is that respondent no.4 has failed to honour his commitment made before the authorities that he shall take care of the petitioners also. Rule 7 of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 reads as under:-
"7. Procedure when more than one member of the family seeks employment. - If more than one member of the family of the deceased Government servant seeks employment under these rules, the Head of Office shall decide about the suitability of the person for giving employment. The decision will be taken keeping in view also the overall interest of the welfare of the entire family, particularly the widow and the minor members thereof."
In case petitioners allege that the undertaking given by respondent no.4 has not been honoured or that the said respondent has failed to comply with the obligation imposed upon him, by virtue of Rule 7 of the Rules of 1974, it shall be open for the petitioners to invite attention of the District Basic Education Officer, Ghazipur, in that regard, and it goes without saying that the concern authority, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the respondent no.4, shall proceed to pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law.
It is made clear that compassionate appointment is offered only with an intent to enable the dependents of the deceased government servant to tide over the sudden difficulty caused due to death of the government servant in harness.
The rules casts a positive obligation upon the person, who is appointed to support other family members also. In case the authority finds that concern respondent has not discharged his obligation, as per the law, it would be open for him to withdraw the benefit already extended or to impose such other conditions, as may be found expedient, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, as also the provision of law. The required consideration would be made upon the petitioners' application, within a period of three months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.
Subject to the observations made above, this writ petition is consigned to records.
Order Date :- 26.11.2018 Anil