High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Sagar Kumar v. Dakshinanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam And Another - WRIT - A No. 8659 of 2007  RD-AH 2662 (19 February 2007)
Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.
Heard Sri Swapnil Kumar, counsel for the petitioner, Sri R.D. Khare, counsel for the respondents and perused the record.
This petition is directed against the order dated 15.9.2006 passed by the respondent no. 1 rejecting the claim of the petitioner regarding compassionate appointment on the ground that he cannot be given service under the Dying in Harness Rules, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as ''the Rules') as his application is time barred..
The father of the petitioner- Kalloo alias Jauhari died in harness on 18.2.1995. He was working as Centrifugal Mistri in the U.P. State Electricity Board.. Mother of the petitioner moved an application dated 8.3.1995 for appointment under the Rules on a post commensurate to her educational qualifications.
The case of the petitioner is that the Executive Engineer vide letter dated 10.3.1995 directed his mother to complete cetain formalities and after completion of formalities, she moved application dated 25.3.1995. Thereafter, mother of the petitioner was again directed by the Executive Engineer to produce Succession Certificate from District Court Mainpuri vide letter dated 6.5.1995 which could be obtained by her only on 9.1.2004. In the meanwhile, mother of the petitioner died and petitioner moved application for his appointment on 7.2.2004.
He was asked to submit certain documents vide letter dated 6.10.2004 issued by the Executive Engineer and after submission of such papers, his case was forwarded by the Executive Engineer to the Dy. General Manager of the respondent-Corporation.
The grievance of the petitioner is that by the impugned letter dated 15.9.2006, his claim has been rejected on the ground that his application is time barred.
From the facts and circumstances, as disclosed in the writ petition, it is evident that the father of the petitioner died way back on 18.2.1995. About 12 years' time has elapsed since then and family members of the deceased employee has been able to survive. On query, counsel for the petitioner could not inform the Court as to what amount was received by the family members from the respondent-Corporation towards death-cum-retiral benefits and whether any family pension is being received by the petitioner or not. From these facts, the family appears not to be in indigent circumstances.
Appointment on compassionate ground is given to a family member of the deceased with the sole intention that the family of the deceased employee may not suffer from acute financial hardship after the death of bread earner. In the instant case, it is evident from record that 12 long years have passed since the death of bread earner and the family members have been able to survive. In this view of the matter and also in view of the fact that immediately after obtainment of succession certificate in 2004, the petitioner did not move application for compassionate appointment, his application for appointment on compassionate ground has rightly been rejected by the impugned order. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order calling for interference in the writ jurisdiction..
This writ petition is devoid of any merits and is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.