Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 846 (ALL)

Sudhakar Sharma v. State of U. P.

2016-03-04

MANOJ KUMAR GUPTA

body2016
JUDGMENT Manoj Kumar Gupta,J. Heard counsel for the peteitioner and Ms. Bushara Mariyam for respondent No. 2. 2. By the impugned order dated 25 January 2001, the application moved by the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment on account of death of his father while in-harness was rejected. The other order under challenge is dated 4 October 2002 whereby subsequent application filed by the petitioner on the same ground had also been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the father of the petitioner died on 4 March 1991 while in-harness. At the relevant time, the petitioner was a minor and therefore, his mother Smt. Pushpa Devi submitted an application before the second respondent on 7 September 1991 apprising him of the fact that her sons and daughters are minor and therefore, she will be making request for their appointment on compassionate basis, after they attain majority. It is stated that the petitioner attained majority on 20 January 2001 and consequently, he moved an application on the same date for being given compassionate appointment. It is urged that in such situation, there was no justification for the respondents to have rejected the application. 4. A perusal of the impugned order dated 25 January 2001 reveals that the application filed by the petitioner on 20 January 2001 was rejected on the ground that it had been filed after 10 years of the death of his father. It has been noted in the impugned order that the purpose of providing compassionate appointment is to mitigate the hardship of the family members that had befallen consequent to the death of the bread earner. Such an appointment therefore does not deserve to be granted after 10 years. This Court does not find any illegality in the reasoning given in the impugned order in rejecting the request for compassionate appointment. It is noticeable that the application was rejected on 25 January 2001 followed by another order to the same effect dated 4 October 2002, but the instant writ petition is being filed in the year 2016 i.e. after 14/15 years of rejection of the application for compassionate appointment. Concededly, death of the father of the petitioner had taken place on 4 March 1991. Twenty five years have expired since then. At this distance of time, there is no warrant to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner. 5. Concededly, death of the father of the petitioner had taken place on 4 March 1991. Twenty five years have expired since then. At this distance of time, there is no warrant to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner. 5. The writ petition is, therefore, devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.