- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents. By means of this writ petition the petitioner has come up to this Court challenging the order refusing to relax time limit for grant of compassionate appointment by order dated 30.3.2010. The petitioner's father was posted in PAC as Constable. Unfortunately, he died on 18.10.1992 while in service. The widow of the deceased employee then moved an application on 27.2.1993 that the claim of her son be considered as and when he attains majority. Finally an application was moved by the son on 20.10.2007. The petitioner was called for verification etc. on 16.5.2008. Thereafter a medical test was conducted on 17.10.2008 and the authorities in the police department forwarded the claim of the petitioner to the State Government for condoning the delay and relaxing the time limit on 21.10.2009. The State Government, however, refused to grant exemption by order dated 30.3.2010. The State Government held that the application has been moved after more than 16 years of the death of the deceased employee and considering the financial condition of the family it has noted that the widow is getting pension of Rs. 2968/- per month which over a period of time must have increased. As such, no ground is made out for relaxing time limit under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 (in short the Rules) and subsequent G.Os. passed in that behalf. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon various decisions of this Court first being Division Bench decision in the case of Vivek Yadav v. State of U.P. and others,2010 7 ADJ 1 (DB) and another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Subhash Yadav v. State of U.P. and others, 2010 10 ADJ 289 and various other decisions to submit that the application even if moved after 16 years could not be rejected only on this ground that the same has been moved beyond prescribed limitation.
(2.) Learned Standing Counsel, however, submits that all these decisions have been considered by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Dubey v. State of U.P. and others, 2014 2 ADJ 312, wherein it has been held that there is no general or vested right to compassionate appointment. It can be claimed only where a scheme or rules provide for such appointment. Where such a provision is made in an administrative scheme or statutory rules, compassionate appointment must strictly be within the scheme or, as the case may be, the rules. It further held that the object and purpose of providing compassionate appointment is to enable the dependent members of the family of a deceased employee to tide over the immediate financial crisis caused by the death of the bread earner. It further held that where a long lapse of time has occurred since the date of death of the deceased employee, the sense of immediacy for seeking compassionate appointment would cease to exist and this would be a relevant circumstance which must weigh with the authorities in determining as to whether a case for grant of compassionate appointment has been made out. It also held that the burden lies on the applicant, where there is a delay in making an application within the period of five years to establish a case on the basis of reasons and justification supported by document and other evidence. It is for the State Government after considering all the facts to take an appropriate decision. The power to relax is in the nature of an exception and is conditioned by existence of objective considerations to the satisfaction of the Government.
(3.) The Hon'ble Supreme Court also in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and others, 1994 4 SCC 138, has categorically deprecated the practice of granting appointment after considerable delay from the date of death of the deceased employee and has held that the appointment to the exclusion to all other qualified persons cannot be claimed as a matter of right The purpose of giving compassionate appointment is to tide over immediate financial crises that is confronted by the family upon sudden death of the sole bread earner. In the present case, if there was such a financial crises at the time of death of the deceased employee on 18.10.2002 the wife could have asked for compassionate appointment instead she made an application that as and when her son may attain majority, his case may be considered. Apparently, there was enough means for the family to survive for 16 long years. In the impugned order also the financial condition of the family has been considered and noted. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that there is no justifiable reason to grant compassionate appointment and relaxing 5 years limit after 16 years of the death of the deceased employee. As such, I do not find any error in the order of the State Government refusing to grant relaxation. There is no merit in the writ petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed.;