S.H.A. Raza, J. - (1.) The father of the petitioner, late Sri Syed Shujaat Hasan. who was employed in Lakhimpur Kheri judgeship and was working as Second Clerk there, expired on 9.11.1993. At the time of the death of the father of the petitioner, he has passed High School examination, only. According to the petitioner, he preferred an application for his appointment on a suitable post on compassionate grounds under the Dying-in-Harness Rules on 3.1.1994. Thereafter he sent reminders on 8.3.1994 and 13.9.1995. In the year 1995, the petitioner passed successfully the examination of Intermediate and again moved an application for his appointment but the District Judge, Kheri, rejected his application. Thereafter, the petitioner who is amongst one of the sons of the deceased invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) A counter-affidavit has been filed by the Senior Administrative Officer, Civil Court. Lakhimpur Kheri. wherein it has been indicated that no application dated 3.1.1994 which has been annexed by petitioner as Annexure-3 to the writ petition was ever moved by the petitioner before the answering opposite party. It was further averred that the object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the penurious family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis in the family due to demise of an earning member of the family. In view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and others, 1994 (4) SCC 138, It was asserted that the compassionate appointment cannot be granted after lapse of a reasonable period. According to the averment of the counter-affidavit, first time, the petitioner approached the District Judge, Kheri on 13.12.1995, i.e,, after two years after the death of his father. At the time of the death of the father of the petitioner, the petitioner was only High School and according to rules, he could be appointed on Class IV post but he did not apply immediately and only after he passed the intermediate examination, an application was made to get himself inducted into the service in the said judgeship. In the counter-affidavit as well as in the order passed by the District Judge, Kheri, great emphasis was laid that financial hardship required immediate remedy and Dying-in-Harness Rules are meant for providing Immediate relief to the family members but neither the petitioner nor his elder brothers or sisters ever applied just after the demise of their father. From the aforesaid reasons a conclusion was drawn that if the family would have suffered any financial hardship, any of them could have immediately applied for such a compassionate appointment. The other circumstance which was taken into consideration by the District Judge was that the petitioner preferred his application for appointment after he passed his intermediate examination, which shows that If the family would have faced any financial hardship, the petitioner would have moved the application as early as possible, meaning thereby the application for appointment was not moved Just after the death of his father but after a lapse of two years. At the relevant time, the petitioner could have been appointed on a Class IV post but he waited for two long years to become entitled for Class III post. The delay in making the applications shows that the family was not in the state of financial destitution, due to the death of the petitioner's father.
(3.) The learned standing counsel laid great emphasis on some of the observations made by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal, (supra), wherein it was held that mere death of an employee does not entitle his family to compassionate appointment. The authority concerned must consider as to whether the family of the deceased employee is unable to meet the financial crisis resulting from the employee's death.;