Sudhir Agarwal - (1.) -Heard Sri B. D. Mishra holding brief of Sri D. V. Jaiswal, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel for the respondents. The petitioners have challenged the orders dated 31st July, 2002, 3rd September, 2002 and 10th October, 2002, whereby the application for compassionate appointment on the post of Bandi Rakshak has been rejected by the D.I.G (Present Headquarter) U. P., since the said claim was made by the petitioner after more than 16 years of the death of the deceased.
(2.) THE brief factual matrix of the case is that Sri Brij Pal Singh, Bandi Rakshak died on 16th April, 1984. Since the petitioner No. 1 was admittedly minor on the said date, therefore, it appears that no application was filed by any legal heir of late Brij Pal Singh claiming appointment under U. P. Government Servant (Dying-in-Harness) Rules, 1974. It appears that for the first time Sri Ajay Pal Singh petitioner No. 1 submitted application on 18th January, 2001, seeking appointment under Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974, which was rejected by the State Government vide order dated 31st July 2002, (Annexure-7) of the writ petition. The said order has been communicated by the letter dated 3rd September 2002, sent by D.I.G. Region, Headquarter U. P. (Annexure-8) and letter dated 8th October, 2002 of Superintendent District Bijnor (Annexure-9). The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after the death of the father of the petitioner No. 1, he passed High School on 10th June, 1997 and, Intermediate on 24th June 2000, thereafter he is entitled for consideration for compassionate appointment under Dying-in-Harness Rules. He also submits that even if an application is filed after more than 5 years, the same could not have been rejected being barred by time since under the Rules, the respondents have to condone the delay. In support of the said contention he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Sri Ram Pandey v. Senior S.P., 2001 (3) ESC 148. Learned standing counsel, however, submits that there is no error in the orders passed by the respondents and the petitioner is not entitled for claiming compassionate appointment under the Rules.
(3.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The provisions pertaining to compassionate appointment under Dying-in-Harness Rules have been made to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of deceased Government servant who has left the entire family in sudden financial crisis on account of sudden death. The appointment of compassionate ground is based on the premises that the applicant is dependant on the deceased employee. Strictly such a claim may not be upheld on the touchstone of Article 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India. However, such claim is considered as reasonable and permissible on the basis of sudden crisis occurring in the family of deceased employee who has served the State and dies while in service. The compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right.;