Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1877 (ALL)

Prem Kishore Mishra v. State Of U. P.

2005-09-23

N.K.MEHROTRA

body2005
ORDER : N.K. MEHROTRA, J. By means of this writ petition, the Petitioner seeks the appointment against a Class IV post in Civil Court, Lakhimpur Kheri, under the U. P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules’). 2. According to the Petitioner, his father Shri Devi Prasad Mishra was a class IV employee in Civil Court, Lakhimpur Kheri. Shri Devi Prasad Mishra died on 21.9.1991 while in service. On 9.1.1993, the Petitioner applied for being appointed on a class IV post under the aforesaid Rules but to no effect. 3. At the time of the death of his father, the Petitioner was minor and he attained the majority on 20.11.1992. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondent No. 2 District Judge, Lakhimpur Kheri. The case of the opposite parties is that at the time of the death of the Petitioner’s father, his two sons namely Nand Kishore Mishra and Har Kishore Mishra were employed in the Judgeship on Class III and Class IV post, respectively. The third son of the deceased namely Shri Brij Kishore Mishra was major at the time of the death of his father. He did not come forward to apply for appointment. On 23.10.1991, the mother of the Petitioner requested the opposite party No. 2 to take her fourth son, the Petitioner in to employment but at that time, the Petitioner was minor. The then District Judge did not allow the employment because the two sons of the deceased were already in employment. The application of the Petitioner was not in accordance with the provisions contained in Rule 6 of the aforesaid Rules. The Petitioner did not furnish the requisite information as required under Rule 6 of the said Rules. The Petitioner did not disclose the financial condition of the family. The family of the Petitioner and his brothers is a joint family. The Petitioner did not file the “No Objection’ from his elder brother who was also unemployed. 5. In view of the admitted facts, the father of the Petitioner died on 21.9.1991 and now the period of 14 years has already been elapsed. 6. In Ram Pratap Singh v. State of U. P. and Ors., 2004 (22) LCD 1364, this Court relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Mrs. 5. In view of the admitted facts, the father of the Petitioner died on 21.9.1991 and now the period of 14 years has already been elapsed. 6. In Ram Pratap Singh v. State of U. P. and Ors., 2004 (22) LCD 1364, this Court relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Mrs. Asha Ramachandra Ambekar and another, AIR 1994 SC 2148 : (1994) 2 SCC 718 ; Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and Others, ; State of Haryana and Others Vs. Rani Devi and Another, (1994) 2 SCALE 834 : (1994) 4 SCC 138 ; Smt. Sushma Gosain and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Others, AIR 1989 SC 1976 : (1989) 4 SCC 468 ; Haryana State Electricity Board v. Naresh Tomar and Anr., (1996) 2 UPLBEC 843 ; State of U.P. and Others Vs. Paras Nath, AIR 1998 SC 2612 : (1998) 2 SCC 412 and Director of Education (Secondary) and Another Vs. Pushpendra Kumar and Others, AIR 1998 SC 2230 : (1998) 5 SCC 192 , has held that the object underlying a provision for grant of compassionate employment, is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread earner who has left the family in a penury and without any means of livelihood. In most of the cases, the Supreme Court has noted that such appointment on the ground of sympathy shall be unconstitutional and hit by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 7. This Court in Ram Pratap Singh’s case (supra), has observed that behind the compassionate appointment, the object is not to give appointment but to extend the financial support. In view of the aforesaid decision, it is settled that underlying idea is to make sure that in case of distress of a family of a deceased employee, immediate succour is provided to mitigate hardship. 8. After referring the aforesaid decision, this Court has held that the Petitioner has failed on the facts of that case, to prove distress which could warrant compassionate appointment to mitigate hardship immediately to the family of the deceased employee. 8. After referring the aforesaid decision, this Court has held that the Petitioner has failed on the facts of that case, to prove distress which could warrant compassionate appointment to mitigate hardship immediately to the family of the deceased employee. At the same time, this Court has held that Dying in Harness Rules do not stand the test of the valid classification and therefore the Rules contemplating compassionate appointment are hit by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 9. In the instant case, under judgment, these facts are not denied that at the time of the death of the father of the Petitioner, two sons were employed in the civil court at Lakhimpur Kheri. The third son was major who did not come forward to seek employment. The Petitioner was under age prescribed for the employment. There was no evidence of distress or hardship on the death of the father of the Petitioner. 10. In view of these circumstances and the law discussed above, the writ petition is dismissed.