- (1.) Heard Sri Swapnil Kumar, learned counsel for petitioner and perused the record.
(2.) The cause of action, giving rise to the present case, is denial of compassionate appointment to petitioner by respondent no. 1, i.e., U.P. Power Corporation Limited. Petitioner's father, Sri Mahipal Singh, working as Assistant Store Keeper, died on 17.9.1996. He did not suffer natural death but he was murdered and the charge of crime was levelled upon his son, Purushottam and one Ram Babu, who were tried in Crime No. 264 of 1996 under Section 302 I.P.C. The legal heirs of deceased employee Mahipal Singh requested respondent no. 1 to appoint Purushottam on compassionate basis but since he was facing criminal trial in respect to murder of his father, i.e., the deceased employee himself, wherein though ultimately he was acquitted giving benefit of doubt, respondent no. 1 did not proceed to appoint him and, in my view, rightly. It is interesting to notice that copy of the affidavit filed before Executive Engineer which is signed by other family members of deceased employee and which also included the signatures of petitioner, I find that he did not feel necessity of compassionate appointment on that date. The deceased employee left besides widow, two married sons, i.e. Sri Ram Autar Singh and Ram Babu, two married daughters Smt. Rukmani Devi and Smt. Nirmala Devi and one unmarried son, i.e. Purushottam. Petitioner, therefore, was already settled and looking after his family in 1999 and did not find any necessity of employment though he was eldest son of deceased employee, but later on, on 14.3.2001, petitioner himself submitted an application seeking employment but this application has been rejected by Executive Engineer by means of impugned order dated 28.2.2003. It is, thus, evident that appointment on compassionate basis is being sought as a matter of right after the death of employee and not to mitigate the penurious condition of family due to sudden death of the sole bread earner. If the family is not in penury and financial scarcity is not a reason for seeking compassionate appointment, in my view, the respondents are well within their rights and fully justified in declining such appointment to petitioner.
(3.) Repeatedly, it has been held that the purpose and object of compassionate appointment is to enable the members of family of the deceased employee in penury, due to sudden demise of the sole breadwinner, get support and succour to sustain themselves and not to face hardship for their bore sustenance.;