Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1581 (ALL)

Ram Kumar v. State of U. P. and Others

2011-07-04

ARUN TANDON

body2011
Arun Tandon, J.;- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. Petitioner before this Court has set up a claim for being offered compassionate appointment on the allegation that one Sri Hari Vijai Singh, who was employed as a Class-IV employee in Nehru Vidyalaya Nabipur (Akbarpur), Post Lalpur, District Kanpur Dehat, an institution, which is a recognized junior high school, expired during harness on 15th September, 1995. Upto that date admittedly the institution was unaided, inasmuch as in paragraph-5 of the writ petition, it has been stated that the institution was brought on grant-in-aid list on 1st December, 1998 i.e. after more than three years of the death of the deceased employee, Hari Vijai Singh. Claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment did not find favour with the District Basic Education Officer, as is apparent from the order dated 1st December, 2006. This order of the District Basic Education Officer has been challenged before this Court on the ground that the petitioner is the adopted son, he was entitled to compassionate appointment and the order of the District Basic Education Officer refusing to approve such appointment of the petitioner is illegal. It is further stated that the petitioner was permitted to work as a class IV employee by the principal of the institution, and he has been working as such since 1996. Despite specific query of the Court, learned counsel for the petitioner could not refer to any statutory provisions, where-under compassionate appointment on a Class IV post in an unrecognized institution could be granted by the Management of the institution, as is being claimed by the petitioner. It is not in dispute that under the Uttar Pradesh Recognized Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Ministerial Staff and Group 'D' Employees) Rules, 1984, no appointment on Group 'D' post can be made in a recognized junior high school expect with the prior approval of the District Basic Education Officer. Admittedly the alleged appointment of the petitioner in the year 1996 was not made with the approval of the District Basic Education Officer. Consequently, this Court cannot take cognizance of the alleged appointment claimed by the petitioner in the year 1996. More than 17 years have elapsed since the date of death of the father of the petitioner as on date. Consequently, this Court cannot take cognizance of the alleged appointment claimed by the petitioner in the year 1996. More than 17 years have elapsed since the date of death of the father of the petitioner as on date. This Court does not find any good ground to interfere in the matter and to direct any compassionate appointment at such a belated stage. It is settled law that compassionate appointment is not a source of employment. It is provided only to mitigate against the immediate uncalled for hardship, which is faced by the family members/dependents due to sudden death of the bread earner. In the case of Sushma Gosain and others v. Union of India and others, AIR 1989 SC 1976 , the Apex Court while considering the object of granting appointment observed as under: "The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread-earner in the family. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress." In the case of Haryana State Electricity Board and another v. Hakim Singh, JT 1997 (8) SC 332, the Apex Court cautioned that the object of providing compassionate employment is only to relieve the family from financial hardship. Therefore, an ameliorating relief should not be taken as opening of alternative mode of recruitment to public employment. In Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar and others, JT 2000 (10) SC 156, the Apex Court reiterated that the compassionate appointment is provided only to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden crises resulting due to the death of sole bread-earner who had left the family in penury without any means of livelihood but it cannot be treated to be a reserved vacancy for the dependants of the deceased Government servant who died in harness. In the case of Haryana State Electricity Board v. Krishna Devi, 2002 LLJ 773 , the Apex Court while reiterating the objective of compassionate appointment as laid down in the earlier cases further observed that the application made at a belated stage cannot be entertained for the reason that by lapse of time, the purpose of making such appointment stands evaporated. In State of Manipur v. Mohd. In State of Manipur v. Mohd. Rajaodin, 2003 (7) SCC 511 , the Apex Court reiterated that the purpose of giving compassionate appointment is only to mitigate hardship caused to the family of the deceased on account of his unexpected death in service, only to alleviate the distress of the family but at a belated stage, as these grounds are no more in existence, therefore, the employment cannot be claimed or provided. In view of the aforesaid, no mandamus at this latter stage for compassionate appointment can be issued. The present writ petition is accordingly dismissed.