Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1202 (ALL)

Anuj Saxena v. State of U. P.

2016-04-04

V.K.SHUKLA, VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA

body2016
JUDGMENT Anuj Saxena, son of late Satish Chandra, petitioner is before this Court assailing the validity of order dated 29.02.2016 passed by learned Single Judge to the extent that his claim for grant of compassionate appointment should also be directed to be considered. 2. Request that is being made by petitioner-appellant is totally irrelevant for the simple reasons that as on date situation that has arisen and substantiated from the fact that father of the petitioner-appellant died on 10.07.1995 and as of now we are in the year 2016, any directives given by us for consideration of claim of petitioner-appellant for grant of compassionate appointment would be totally against the spirit of providing compassionate appointment as the object of providing compassionate appointment is to save the family of the deceased from immediate crisis and same do not constitute a reservation for all times to come. 3. Claim that has been set up by petitioner for consideration of grant of appointment on compassionate basis is totally dehors the Rules. 4. Apex Court in Civil Appeal N0. 2206, Local Administration Department Vs. M. Selvanaygam @ Kumervela, decided on 5.4.2011, held that the incumbent had died on 22.11.1988, and first application for grant of compassionate appointment was moved by applicant, when he was merely 11 years old on 29.7.1993 and thereafter another application was moved, after 7 years 6 months period, the claim was rejected as time barred, and writ petition preferred against the same was dismissed; Special Appeal preferred against the same was allowed on 30.4.2009. The Special Leave to Appeal, thereafter, has been allowed, holding that grant of compassionate appointment on application moved after 7 years 6 month, will not at all come within the scope of compassionate appointment. Apex Court has deprecated such appointments after such long spell and looking into the object of providing compassionate appointment in the cases of State of J. & K. vs. Sajjad Ahmed Mir, 2006 AIR SCW 3706, State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Rani Devi and Anr (1996) 5 SCC 308 : AIR 1996 SC 2445 ), Life Insurance Corporation of India V. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar (Mrs.) & Anr. (1994)2 SCC 718 , Umesh Kumar Nagpal V. State of Haryana & ors. (1994) 4 SCC 138 . 5. Vs. Rani Devi and Anr (1996) 5 SCC 308 : AIR 1996 SC 2445 ), Life Insurance Corporation of India V. Asha Ramchandra Ambekar (Mrs.) & Anr. (1994)2 SCC 718 , Umesh Kumar Nagpal V. State of Haryana & ors. (1994) 4 SCC 138 . 5. Once more that 20 years' period has elapsed from the date of death of the petitioner's father then this Court cannot come to rescue of the appellant-petitioner by directing to consider the claim of the appellant-petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment, as this is not the object of providing compassionate appointment and same would tantamount to endless compassion and reservation for all the times to come. 6. We do not find that learned Single Judge has committed any error of law in dismissing the writ petition. Consequently, the Special Appeal is dismissed.