High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Chandra Shekhar Mishra v. State Of U.P. & Others - SPECIAL APPEAL No. 100 of 2007  RD-AH 1153 (18 January 2007)
Court No. 32
Special Appeal No. 100 of 2007
Chandra Shekhar Mishra
State of U.P. and others
Hon'ble S. Rafat Alam, J.
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.
This is an intra-court appeal under the Rules of the Court against the judgment of Hon'ble Single Judge dated 14.12.2006 dismissing the Writ Petition No. 68282 of 2006.
We have heard Sri Surya Narain Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant and also perused the judgment of Hon'ble Judge.
It appears that the petitioner-appellant filed Writ Petition 4596 of 2006 before this Court with the grievance that he should be given appointment on compassionate ground under U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants (Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974 on account of death of his father who was working as Assistant Teacher in Baba Gaya Das Technical Inter College, Barhaj, District Deoria. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 24.1.2006 with the direction that the petitioner-appellant may file a representation before the appropriate authority. The DIOS pursuant to the direction of this Court considered the representation and rejected the same by a reasoned order dated 25.8.2006, a copy whereof is enclosed as Annexure-8 to the affidavit filed in support of appeal. The legal heirs of the deceased employee included widow, Smt. Adhyawati Devi, three sons including the appellant and Sri Vivekanand Mishra, who are major, Sri Amrendra Kumar Mishra, (minor) and one minor daughter Kumari Sangeeta. The other legal heirs have raised objection against the appointment of appellant and therefore his representation was rejected. The appellant preferred Writ Petition No. 31690 of 2006 which is pending before this Court. Thereafter Sri Vivekanand Mishra, second son of the deceased employee submitted an application for compassionate appointment and the widow of the deceased employee gave an affidavit requesting for compassionate appointment to him whereupon the respondent authority issued letter of appointment dated 4.12.2006 appointing him on compassionate ground whereagainst the appellant filed the aforesaid writ petition which has been dismissed vide judgment under appeal.
The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the appellant being the eldest son, he ought to have been considered for this appointment. It is also contended that the affidavit filed before the DIOS on behalf of widow is forged and therefore the DIOS before giving appointment to the second son ought to given an opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
We are not impressed with the aforesaid submissions. Compassionate appointment is provided with an objective to provide immediate succor to the bereaved family of the deceased employee to meet the sudden financial crisis it has faced due to sudden death of the sole bread earner. Where more than one legal heirs claim compassionate appointment, normally it is the widow or such person in whom the family has confidence that he will look after the entire family, should be given compassionate appointment since that will be the only mode in which the purpose of compassionate appointment can be best serve. In the case in hand it appears that the compassionate appointment was offered to the widow of the deceased employee who instead submitted an affidavit consenting for compassionate appointment to her second son Sri Vivekanand Mishra. The other members of the family include two minor children and the appellant. Therefore the affidavit of the mother can be validly treated to be the representation of the minor children also in favour of the second son, Sri Vivekanand Mishra and in the aforesaid facts and circumstances the decision of the authorities in allowing compassionate appointment to the second son Sri Vivekanand Mishra can not be said to be either arbitrary or illegal in any manner warranting any interference. We are also not impressed with the submission that in such a case any opportunity of hearing needs to be given to the appellant particularly when his application was already rejected due to the objection raised by the other family members of the deceased employee.
Therefore, in the facts of the case we do not find any illegality in the order dated 4.12.2006 appointing the second son of the deceased employee and thus there is no fault in the order of the Hon'ble Single Judge warranting interference in this appeal. We do not find any merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed summarily.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.