Narendra Kishore Mehrotra, J. - (1.) BY means of this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking appointment under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. According to the petitioner, his father Shri Tezdar Khan was Principal in Dr. G.K. Jaitley Inter College, Akbarpur, District Ambedkar Nagar. Shri Tezdar Khan died on 4.12.1977 when he was working as Principal. At the time of the death of father of the petitioner, five successors were major and 4 were minor under the Guardianship of Smt. Kubera Begum, the mother of the petitioner. The petitioner applied to the D.I.O.S., Faizabad for appointment under the aforesaid Rules on 10.12.1977. Afterwards, the petitioner made an application before the Governor on 19.12.2001 and to the Minister for State on 28.3.2001. The D.I.O.S. referred the matter to the U.P. Government for obtaining permission but no permission was given.
(2.) IN the counter affidavit filed by the D.I.O.S., it is stated that on the death of Tezdar Khan on 4.12.1977 and after his death, no claim was made by any of his dependents. Smt. Kubera widow of late Tezdar Khan filed a Writ Petition No. 9165 (S/S) of 1993 for family pension. The judgment passed in that writ petition for grant of family pension was complied with. The petitioner has filed this writ petition after 26 years from the date of death of his father. It is stated that at the time of the death of the petitioner's father, there was no provision for giving appointment to the dependents of the deceased teacher/principal working in the recognised aided educational institution. The U.P. Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 were not applicable in the case of the teachers of the aided educational institution. Opposite party No. 3, the manager of the institution has also filed the counter affidavit. It is alleged that the provision for giving appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules were incorporated in Regulations 103 to 107 of the Regulations framed under Chapter III of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Regulation 103 provides for compassionate appointment in respect of those employees who died on or after 1st January, 1981. It is alleged that the rules for compassionate appointment, are meant only to give relief at the time of sudden distress on account of the untimely death of the bread earner of the family. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the appointment on compassionate ground. It is specifically stated that the family of the late Shri Tezdar Khan did not suffer any financial distress at the time of his death.
(3.) IN Ram Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and others : 2004 (22) LCD 1364, this Court relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha Ram Chandra, Ambedkar Nagar : 1994 (68) FLR 791 (SC); Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and others : 1994 (68) FIR 1191 (SC); State of Haryana and others v. Ram Devi and another, 1997 (74) FLR 2023 (SC); Smt. Sushma Gosain v. Union of India : 1989 (59) FLR 626 (SC); Haryana State Electricity Board v. Naresh Tomar and another : 1996 (72) FLR 819 (SC); State of U.P. and others v. Paras Nath : (1998) 2 SCC 412; Director of Education (Secondary) and another v. Pushpendra Kumar and others : 1998 (33) ALR 469 (SC), has held that the object underlying a provision for grant of compassionate employment, is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread earner who has left the family in a penury and without any means of livelihood. In most of the cases, the Supreme Court has noted that such appointment on the ground of sympathy shall be unconstitutional and hit by Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.;