- (1.) R. B. Misra, J. In this case prayer has been made directing the respondents to get appointment under U. P. (Recruitment of Government Servant) Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.
(2.) HEARD Sri D. B. Yadav learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri M. C. Chaturvedi, Addl. Chief Standing Counsel. It appears that the father of the petitioner died while serving in the Revenue Department on 21-9- 1997. The petitioner at that time was a minor and after attaining the majority an application on behalf of the petitioner was filed on 10-12-1996. According to the petitioner he is still unemployed and he has given representation to the respondents but no heed was taken. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in (2002)1 UPLBEC 415, Pushpendra Singh v. Regional Manager, U. P. State Road Transport Corporation, Aligarh and another, where this Court (D. B.) has found the rejection of the claim of the petitioner made for getting appointment after expiry of 18 years because the writ petitioner was minor when his father died and after attaining the majority the writ petitioner claimed for appointment under U. P. (Recruitment of Government Servants) Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 in short called 'rules 1974'. The High Court has observed that rejection of his application is not erroneous, however directed consideration of the application of the petitioner afresh a view of the financial straits. In this case the High Court observed as below : "the rule of compassionate appointment is an exception to the general mode of appointment strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications on merits. It is born of pure humanitarian consideration and interest of justice, reckoning into consideration the fact that unless some source of sustenance is provided the family would not be able to fend for itself on its own. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis, Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and others, (1994)4 SCC 138. In the said case, the Supreme Court has held the view that that mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle a family to get employment as of right irrespective of "the financial condition of the family of the deceased. " "the compassionate appointment", it has further been held, "cannot be granted after a lapse of reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right,which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole bread winner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over. " In Jagdish Prasad v. State of Haryana, 1996 (1) SLR 7 (SC), the question of appointment on compassionate ground to an applicant who was four years old at the time when his father, an ex- employee died in harness came up for consideration before the apex Court. It was contended that since the appellant therein was minor when the father died in harness, the compassionate circumstances having continued till the date he made an application for appointment, he was entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground. The contention was met with disapproved by the Supreme Court in the following words: "the very object of appointment of a dependent of the deceased employees who die in harness is to relieve unexpected immediate hardship and distress caused to the family by sudden demise of the earning member of the family. Since the death occurred was back in 1971, in which year the appellant was four years old, it cannot be said that he is entitled to be appointed after he attained majority long thereafter. In other words, if that contention is accepted, it amounts to another mode of recruitment of the dependent of a deceased Government servant which cannot been encouraged, de hors the recruitment rules. "
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner has also placed reliance in the case of 1996 (2) LBESR 206 (SC) : 1996 (2) SLR SC 11, Haryana State Electricity Board v. Naresh Tanwar and another, wherein the Supreme Court has only directed the authorities to consider the representation of the petitioner keeping in view the financial condition and family circumstances of the claimant. It is settled law that compassionate appointment under Dying- in-Harness Rules should not be given after long years of the death of the father vide Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, 1994 (4) SCC 138; S. Mohan v. Government of T. N. , 1998 (9) SCC 485; H. S. Srivastava v. State of U. P. , (1990)1 UPLBEc 220; U. P. S. R. T. C. v. A. K. Misra, 1995 (1) LBESR 208 (All) : (1995) 1 UPLBEC 2047 (SC); Haryana State Electricity Board v. Naresh Tanwar, 1996 (2) LBESR 206 (SC) : JT 1996 (2) SC 542 etc. The very purpose of compassionate appointment on the death of an employee is that there may be immediate financial crisis in the family and some financial help is necessary. Since the petitioner's father died long ago that financial crisis is over, and now there is no question of granting appointment to the petitioner under the Dying in Harness Rules in view of the above decisions.;