- (1.) The claim of the appellant for being granted compassionate appointment came to be rejected by the second respondent in terms of an order dated 31 March, 2015. This was subjected to challenge in a writ petition which has come to be dismissed by the learned single Judge on 15 May, 2015. Resting his judgment on the decision rendered by a Full Bench of this Court in Shiv Kumar Dubey v. State of U.P., 2015 AIR(All) 47, the learned single Judge held that the order impugned suffered from no legal infirmity and that the appellant could not be granted compassionate appointment eight years after the death of his father.
(2.) The father of the appellant died on 4 July, 2007 while working as a constable in the U.P. Police posted at Rampur. At the time of his death the appellant was a minor. From the records placed before the learned single Judge it appears that the mother of the appellant submitted an application seeking compassionate appointment in his favour on 21 December, 2011. Upon attaining the age of majority, the appellant is stated to have submitted an application on 2 July, 2013. In this application the appellant disclosed that he had become eighteen years of age and that he had also cleared the Intermediate examination. The respondents, it may be noted, by a communication dated 11 January, 2012 had informed the mother of the appellant that her application could not be processed till such time as the appellant attained the age of majority and obtained an Intermediate certificate. The claim of the appellant has since come to be rejected by the order of 31 March, 2015. The order of the second respondent records that although the father had died on 4 July, 2007, the mother never applied for appointment on compassionate grounds. It further proceeds to note that the family of the deceased constable was receiving Rs. 8,693/- per month as pension. It also took into consideration the land holding of the family and proceeded to turn down the claim for compassionate appointment.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has sought to contend that the respondents proceeded on an incorrect premise that the application for grant of compassionate appointment had come to be preferred five years after of the death of his father. Reference has been made to the application made by the mother of the appellant on 21 December, 2011 in this respect. It becomes pertinent to note here that the application dated 21 December, 2011 was not one made by the mother for being granted compassionate appointment herself. It was an application seeking grant of compassionate appointment in favour of the appellant. At the time when this application was made the appellant was neither eighteen years of age nor did he possess the Intermediate certificate. Obviously, therefore, the application could neither have been granted nor considered. The said application was in fact not liable to be countenanced at all.;