SATYENDRA SINGH BISHT Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND OTHERS
LAWS(UTN)-2013-6-117
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Decided on June 10,2013

Satyendra Singh Bisht Appellant
VERSUS
State of Uttarakhand and others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. - (1.) The father of the petitioner who was in employment as Assistant Grade-I in Uttarakhand Forest Development Corporation died on 16.7.2011 while in harness. The petitioner being son of the deceased employee applied for compassionate appointment. The petitioner admittedly was being given appointment on a class IV post vide order dated 25.8.2011. The petitioner, however, has not accepted this appointment and sought appointment on a class III post. His ground for seeking such an appointment is that he is highly qualified person having MBA degree and therefore class IV post is not in commensurate with his qualification.
(2.) On the other hand, Forest Development Corporation has rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that no such post of class III is presently available for filling on compassionate ground and appointment on compassionate ground cannot be given as a matter of choice.
(3.) Appointments in public service are made, subject to reservations, etc. purely on the basis of merit. There is a selection process involved in such matters and only if one qualifies the selection process, one is liable to be given such an appointment. Such a process is applicable also on class III and class IV posts. Appointment given on compassionate ground under the Dying in Harness Rules is an exception to the Rules referred above. Such an exception has been carved out by the Legislatures in a welfare State so that a family who has been deprived of its only earning member is able to meet the immediate hardship which has befallen upon the family due to death of its only bread-winner. In most cases such families who have lost their bread-winner are at the stage of penury and face extreme financial hardship. The provision of law, referred above (i.e. appointment on compassionate ground) thus seeks to mitigate the hardship of a family in distress. Apparently there does not seem any such hardship as the petitioner has denied the appointment given to him.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.