Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 411 (ALL)

Subodh Kumar Mishra v. State of U. P.

2022-03-22

JASPREET SINGH, RAJESH BINDAL

body2022
ORDER : (Jaspreet Singh, J.) : 1. This intra-court appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 28.02.2020 passed in W.P. No. 6082 (SS) of 2013 (Subodh Kumar Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and Others) whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition of the appellant assailing the order passed by the District Basic Education Officer, District Hardoi dated 28.05.2013 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment under the The U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. 2. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned Single Judge has failed to consider the object of granting compassionate appointment, inasmuch as, upon the death of the father of the appellant, the appellant was entitled for consideration for compassionate appointment especially when there was no other earning member in the family. It is also urged that the family conditions of the appellant are such that it was a fit case where the appellant ought to have been shown some indulgence as the mother of the appellant is also a dependent while the other brother of the appellant who was in the Armed force has already retired and four other sisters are married but the appellant was suitably eligible for such appointment. By taking a technical view, the writ petition has been dismissed and as such the appeal deserves to be allowed. 3. The learned Standing Counsel refuting the aforesaid submissions has submitted that the appellant is 48 years of age. The appellant himself did not comply with the conditions, inasmuch as, an affidavit was required to be furnished in terms of the Rules to indicate that the appellant or any other member of his family were not engaged in any employment with the State Government or the Central Government. It is urged that there is a specific finding that the appellant did not comply with the aforesaid conditions and in view thereof the order passed by the District Basic Education Officer dated 28.05.2013 cannot be faulted. Moreover, the Writ Court also noticed the aforesaid aspect and finding that the appellant had already attained 45 years of age whereas the father of the appellant had died on 25.06.2007 and the basic purpose of grant of compassionate appointment had already outlived its utility and compassionate appointment cannot be treated as an alternate source of recruitment. Moreover, the Writ Court also noticed the aforesaid aspect and finding that the appellant had already attained 45 years of age whereas the father of the appellant had died on 25.06.2007 and the basic purpose of grant of compassionate appointment had already outlived its utility and compassionate appointment cannot be treated as an alternate source of recruitment. Thus, in this view of the matter, there is no error which may require any interference of this Court under its intra-court appellate jurisdiction. 4. The Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the material available on record. 5. Briefly, the facts which are not disputed are that the father of the appellant namely Ramesh Chandra Mishra was a Teacher in Primary School, Surjipur Block, Kudarpur Tehsil Shahabad District Hardoi and during his tenure, he expired on 25.06.2007. The father of the appellant had left behind his wife, two sons and four daughters. It is not disputed that the four daughters of the deceased are duly married. The elder brother of the appellant was also employed with the armed forces and has superannuated. 6. The appellant had moved an application seeking his appointment under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependant of Government Servants Dying-in Harness Rules, 1974, after completing necessary formalities and sought appointment on a Class-IV Post. 7. However, the record indicates that the petitioner had earlier preferred a petition before this Court bearing W.P. No. 4401 (SS) of 2012 (Subodh Kumar Mishra Vs. U.P. and Others) which was disposed of by means of order dated 19.03.2013 with a direction to move a fresh representation regarding his claim which shall be considered by the District Basic Education Officer. 8. The record further indicates that by means of order dated 28.05.2013, the District Basic Education Officer rejected the representation of the appellant recording a specific finding that the appellant has an elder brother namely Atul Kumar who has not submitted his no objection nor the appellant had filed the requisite documents and affidavit regarding the financial status and that he himself was not employed in any Central or State Government job. Since the appellant did not comply with the requirements as provided in the Government Order dated 04.09.200, hence, the representation was rejected. 9. Since the appellant did not comply with the requirements as provided in the Government Order dated 04.09.200, hence, the representation was rejected. 9. Apparently, the documents which have been brought on record indicates that the affidavit which has been filed by the appellant as Annexure No. 8 and 9 are dated 18.02.2022. The learned counsel for the appellant could not substantiate the fact regarding filing of the aforesaid affidavits before the District Education Officer. He also could not dispute that the finding recorded both by the District Education Officer as well as by the Writ Court that the appellant did not comply with the aforesaid conditions is incorrect rather by filing the affidavit as Annexure Nos. 8 and 9 with the instant appeal indicates that the appellant had not filed the said affidavits earlier and the affidavits have been filed at this late stage which cannot be taken note for the reason that the compassionate appointment is not a rule rather it is an exception. It is not to be taken as a source of recruitment rather it is only a power which is conferred to provide solace to an affected family purely on humanitarian grounds and that too to provide immediate relief to the employee's family to tide over the sudden financial crisis and as such the compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. 10. In the instant case as already noticed both by the District Basic Education Officer as well as the Writ Court that neither the appellant complied with the necessary conditions nor furnished any status of his finances, moreover, in paragraph 16 of the writ petition filed before the Writ Court, it was specifically stated by the petitioner that he has inherited about 3 Bighas of agricultural land and his livelihood is based on the said land but has not disclosed any details, hence, in this view of the matter we do not find that there is any error which may persuade this Court to interfere in the matter. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit is consequently dismissed. In the facts and circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.