Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 56 (UTT)

MAMTA v. UTTAR PRADESH POWER CORPORATION LTD.

2014-02-26

ALOK SINGH

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Alok Singh, J. (Oral) For the reasons stated in the applications, orders dated 09.08.2012, 23.04.2010 and 05.10.2009 are hereby recalled. Writ petition is restored to its original number. 2. Raj Pal Singh, father of the petitioner, expired on 14.12.1976 in harness. Petitioner, after attaining the age of majority, moved an application seeking compassionate appointment on 19.02.1996, however, no action was taken thereon. Consequently, feeling aggrieved, petitioner has filed present writ petition before Allahabad High Court in the year 2000 seeking a writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to provide her suitable post on compassionate ground. 3. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Bhawani Prasad Sonkar Vs. Union of India and others reported in 2011 (4) SCC 209 has held as under: “20. Thus, while considering a claim for employment on compassionate ground, the following factors have to be borne in mind: (i) Compassionate employment cannot be made in the absence of rules or regulations issued by the Government or a public authority. The request is to be considered strictly in accordance with the governing scheme, and no discretion as such is left with any authority to make compassionate appointment dehors the scheme. (ii) An application for compassionate employment must be preferred without undue delay and has to be considered within a reasonable period of time. (iii) An appointment on compassionate ground is to meet the sudden crisis occurring in the family on account of the death or medical invalidation of the bread winner while in service. Therefore, compassionate employment cannot be granted as a matter of course by way of largesse irrespective of the financial condition of the deceased/ incapacitated employee’s family at the time of his death or incapacity, as the case may be. (iv) Compassionate employment is permissible only to one of the dependants of the deceased/ incapacitated employee, viz. parents, spouse, son or daughter and not to all relatives, and such appointments should be only to the lowest category that is Class III and IV posts.” 4. As per dictums of Hon’ble Apex Court, it is settled position of law that compassionate appointment is granted to meet the sudden crisis on account of death of breadwinner while in service. While considering the claim for compassionate appointment, financial condition of family of deceased employee must be taken into consideration. As per dictums of Hon’ble Apex Court, it is settled position of law that compassionate appointment is granted to meet the sudden crisis on account of death of breadwinner while in service. While considering the claim for compassionate appointment, financial condition of family of deceased employee must be taken into consideration. The object to grant compassionate appointment is to provide immediate help to the dependents of deceased employee, so that they may not die in starvation. 5. It is settled position of law that compassionate appointment is not a Rule and cannot be sought, as a matter of right. The compassionate appointment is a concession and exception to public appointment provided under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, therefore, to seek a concession of compassionate appointment, claimant must prove his financial condition and must prove that in the event of non grant of compassionate appointment, claimant would face financial crisis and may die in starvation. 6. Since application seeking compassionate appointment was moved in the year 1996 and present petition is filed in the year 2000 and now, in the year 2014, when petitioner would have crossed the upper age limit to seek public appointment, writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner seems to be unjustified, at this stage. Therefore, relief sought cannot be granted at this stage. Consequently, writ petition fails and is dismissed. CLMA No. 8249 of 2012 as well as MCC No. 629 of 2012 also stand disposed of.