- (1.) THE Appellant has preferred this appeal from the order of the learned Single Judge dated 26.11.2010 by which the prayer for consideration for compassionate appointment under dying in harness was rejected on the ground of delay for about 27 years from the date of death of applicant's father on 13.1.1983. The Supreme Court of India has repeatedly held that compassionate appointment is not a reservation of post in favour of minor dependant of the deceased employee. It was also held that financial hardship cannot be said to have continued for 27 years.
(2.) THE learned Counsel for the Appellant has relied upon a Division Bench judgment reported in, 2010 (7) ADJ 1 (DB), Vivek Yadav v. State of U.P. and Ors., of this Court to get a favour of consideration. Though in the judgment it has been held that when the rules are prevailing for relaxation for making the application, a member of the family, on attaining majority, can file an application for due consideration but in the judgment itself it has been held that the law relating to compassionate appointment is no longer res integra. The right of compassionate appointment does not confer a right but it does give rise to the legitimate expectation in a person covered by the rules that his application should be considered, if otherwise he meets with the requirement. Upon being called we find that only one page application has been given by the Appellant before the authority that he had attained majority. No prayer in prescribed format has followed to relax the period. No particulars of the bank account or property belonging the family has been given nor anything is understandable as to whether the Petitioner is the sole heir or other major claimants were available at the time of death of his father. Why widow did not approach the authority for giving service has not been explained. These were the material factors for due consideration but the same have not been furnished by the Appellant.
(3.) APART from it, learned Standing Counsel has contended that by a Full Bench judgment reported in, 2010 (5) ESC 3025 (All) (FB), Pawan Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and Ors., it has been held that no heir of work -charge, temporary or casual employee will be entitled for compassionate appointment.;