Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 384 (ALL)

Rohtas Kumar v. State of U. P.

2007-02-19

RAKESH TIWARI

body2007
JUDGMENT : RAKESH TIWARI, J. 1. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. The counsel for the petitioner has not been able to answer the question put forth by the Court that what was the last pay drawn by the deceased employee at the time of his death and retiral benefits that had been given to the dependent of the deceased employee or the property to show whether the family is in indigent circumstances or not. 3. Admittedly, the mother of the petitioner moved an application on 126.8.1994 before respondent No. 5 for appointment on compassionate ground of her son Deepak. She also died on 15.7.2003. The eldest son Deepak Maurya died in a motor accident on 11.12.2002. On their death the petitioner may apply for appointment on compassionate ground but the has not applied for compassionate appointment in 1994 when his father died in harness. 4. From the record it is apparent that the petitioner has moved an application for appointment on compassionate ground on 10.8.2004, which is highly belated. Appointment on compassionate ground is not a legal right of the dependent of the deceased employee. 5. The counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court towards letters dated 18.10.2004 and 18. 4. From the record it is apparent that the petitioner has moved an application for appointment on compassionate ground on 10.8.2004, which is highly belated. Appointment on compassionate ground is not a legal right of the dependent of the deceased employee. 5. The counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court towards letters dated 18.10.2004 and 18. 11.2004 appended Annexures-7 and 8 to the writ petition which are as under: i=kad&{ksdk y[k@iz'kk Hkwiw&Mhvks@04@ch 3644 fn- 18-10-04 lsok esa] Jh jksgrk'k iq+= Lo Jh cynso xzke& vkxkiqj lhvkjih jksM lsUV~y os;jgkml] jkeiqj ds lkeus] ftyk jkeiqj A fo"k;& vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij fu;qfDr ds lEcU/k esa A egksn;] Jh jkts'k dqekj Hk.Mkj izcU/kd lso os'k fMiks fiy[kuh us fnukad&30-9-2004 dks vkids firk Lo cYnso dh vkfFkZd fLFkfr dh tkp dh vkSj ;g laLrwfr dh gS fd tc rd vki vius HkkbZ nhid o cgu dq lhrk dh eqR;q dk izLrqr ugh djrs vkidh vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij fu;qfDr ds okjs eas fopkj ugh fd;k tk ldrk A vr% vki vfr'kh?kz mijksDr izek.k i= Hk.Mkj izcU/kd ds ek/;e ls bl dk;kZy; dks izLrqr djsa mlds mijkUr gh tkap vf/kdkjh }kjk izLrqr fjiksZV ds fopkj gsrq fuxfer dk;kZy; dks vko';d dk;Zokgh ds fy, Hkstk tk ldrk gS A Hkonh; g vLi"V ,- ds- esgjk=k Hk.Mkj.k ,oa fujh{k.k vf/kdkjh iz'kklu dsafæ; Hk.Mkj.k fuxe Hkkjr ljdkj dk ,d midze i=kad {ksdk y[k@iz'kk@Hkwiw Mhvks@04@ch 7000 fnukad 18-11-04 lsok ess] Jh jksgrk'k iq+= Lo Jh cynso xzke& vkxkiqj lhvkjih jksM lsUV~y os;jgkml] jkeiqj ds lkeus] ftyk jkeiqj A fo"k;& vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij fu;qfDr ds lEcU/k esa A egksn;] d`i;k bl dk;kZy; ds i=kad {ksdky[k@ iz'kk@Hkwiw Mhvks@04@ch&3644 fnukad 18-10-04 dk lanHkZ ys] ftlesa vkils vius cMs+ HkkbZ Lo nhid o cgu Lo dq lhrk dh eqR;q dk izek.k i= Lrqr djus ds fy, dgk x;k Fkk ysfdu vHkh rd mijksDr izek.k i= 'kh?kz Hksts ftlls lHkh dkxtkr fuxfer dk;kZy; ugha Hksth tk ldh gSA vr% vkils vuqjks/k gS fd nksuks izek.k i= 'kh?kz Hksts ftlls lHkh dkxtkr fuxfer dk;kZy; vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq Hksts tk ldsaA Hkonh; g vLi"V ,- ds- esgjk=k Hk.Mkj.k ,oa fujh{k.k vf/kdkjh iz'kklu 6. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the authority has given assurance in the aforesaid letters that the petitioner will be appointed is incorrect. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner is that the authority has given assurance in the aforesaid letters that the petitioner will be appointed is incorrect. By letter dated 18.10.2004 Annexure-7 to the writ petition the petitioner has been informed that he has not submitted the required documents regarding claim of his brother Deepak Maurya and sister Km. Sita for an enquiry. Simultaneously again the petitioner has been informed by letter dated 18.11.2004 Annexurc-8 to the writ petition regarding completion of the formalities etc. 7. The counsel for the respondents submits that it is settled law that the object of Dying in Harness Rules is enable the family of the deceased to tide-over the sudden crisis due to death of sole bread winner and the father of the petitioner was only earning member of the family; that the petitioner has no other source of livelihood as such he is entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground. 8. Admittedly, the father of the petitioner died on 20.1.1994. The mother of the petitioner died on 15.7.2003 and the elder brother of the petitioner died on 11.12.2002. Sister of the petitioner Sita Devi has been married. 9. It appears from the record that the petitioner was minor at the time of death of his father. He has attained majority; has taken education up to High School and has also married his sister during this past 12 years since the death of his father. All these establish that the petitioner is not in cold penury or in indigent circumstances. From the letters of the authorities quoted above it is also apparent that the petitioner has not completed all the formalities within time. 10. For the reasons stated above, no case for interference is made out. 11. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost.