- (1.) Heard Mr. Shekhar Chaudhary, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Som Narayan Mishra as well as Sri Vivek Shandilya, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents.
(2.) This appeal has been preferred by the original petitioner aggrieved by the dismissal of his writ by the learned Single Judge in terms of the order dated 8 November 2016. The writ petition preferred by the appellant questioned the orders dated 11 October 2010 and 15 October 2010 in terms of which the claim of the appellant for being considered for appointment on compassionate grounds, had come to be turned down. The basic premise of the orders impugned in the writ petition was that the appellant being the adopted son would not stand covered under the definition of family as contained in the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974. The learned Single judge has noted that although the claim of the appellant had been turned down by an order passed by the respondents on 15 October 2010, the writ petition itself was preferred in 2012. The learned Single Judge then proceeds to observe that the delay and laches had not been explained. However, the learned Single Judge has then proceeded to refer to various judgments rendered by the Supreme Court on the scope of the powers liable to be exercised in matters of compassionate appointment and has ultimately dismissed the writ petition with the following observations: In the present case the petitioner had expired on 5.4.2007 and petitioner had made a representation which too was rejected on 5.10.2010, The family survived for the last 9 years and thus it could be safely presumed that the period of immediate crisis has already over and accordingly no indulgence can be granted to the petitioner. Even otherwise, as per the relevant rule applicable to the Corporation, the term family defined therein does not include the adopted son, meaning thereby the adopted son does not fall within the meaning of family as defined under the Rules applicable to the Corporation. Nothing to the contrary has been shown by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In this view of the matter also, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of any indulgence. Moreover, looking to the fact that compassionate appointment is being sought but nevertheless the fact remains that nothing has been brought on record to show that the rules which are applicable to the Corporation are applicable to the petitioner or that the petitioner falls within the definition of the family in the rules which have been adopted by the Corporation. Even otherwise, it is an established law that the grant of compassionate appointment after a long period is not permissible and if the family can survive for the last so many years i.e. 2007 to 2016 i.e. 9 years, the Court see no reason to grant any indulgence at this belated stage to the petitioner who claims himself to be adopted son. A perusal of affidavit, which was filed in the year 2012, the age of petitioner has been disclosed as 31 years and in this view of the matter also, the petitioner is not entitled for grant of any indulgence at this belated stage.
(3.) It becomes relevant to note that the claim of the appellant for being accorded appointment had not been turned down by the respondents on the ground that there is no continued financial crisis faced by the family of the deceased. The learned Single Judge however appears to have assumed that the period of immediate crisis was over and no indulgence was liable to be granted to the appellant. It has been further noted that as per the rules applicable to the Corporation, an adopted son would not fall within the meaning of family and in this view of the matter also the appellant has been denied relief.;