D.N.PATEL, J. - (1.) THE present writ petition has been preferred for getting compassionate appointment, because of the death of the father of the present petitioner, which has taken place on 17th April, 1999.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has taken this Court to Annexure 4 as well as Annexure 6 to the memo of petition and submitted that the respondents have wrongly denied the compassionate appointment to the present petitioner, despite the fact that the name of the present petitioner was already referred in the service records of the respondents, as a son of his father. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a decision, rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maharani Devi & anr. v. Union of India & ors., as reported in A.I.R. 2010 (1) Jhar R 88, as also a decision, rendered by this Court in the case of Durga Kumari v. Central Coalfields Ltd. & ors. (L.P.A. No. 289 of 2008, disposed of on 12th August, 2010). Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that they have filed detailed counter affidavit and it has been stated in paragraph no.13 of the counter affidavit, filed by the respondents, as well as at paragraph no.9 of the sur -rejoinder, filed by the respondents, that the name of the present petitioner was not appearing in any of the records, like service book, service sheet exerts, gratuity, nomination form, LTC/LLTC Option Form A nor it is reflected in the C.M.P.F. Declaration Form (A), which is meant for provident fund declaration. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that even otherwise also, much time has lapsed after the year, 1999 and, thus, in view of the decisions, rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. V. Paras Nath, as reported in (1998) 2 SCC 412; Sanjay Kumar V. State of Bihar & ors., as reported in (2000)7 SCC 192; and Santosh Kumar Dubey v. State of Uttar Pradesh & ors., as reported in (2009) 6 SCC 481, no compassionate appointment may be given by the order of this Court. The right of compassionate appointment has been frustrated by now.
(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, I see no reason to entertain this writ petition, mainly for the following reasons: (i). Father of the present petitioner has expired on 17th April, 1999 and, as such, much time has lapsed after the death of the father of the present petitioner. (ii). It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. V. Paras Nath, as reported in (1998)2 SCC 412, at paragraph nos. 4, 5 and 6, as under: 4. Seventeen years after the death of his father, the respondent, on 8.1.1986, made an application for being appointed to the post of a Primary School Teacher under the said Rules. His application was rejected. He, thereafter, filed a writ petition before the High Court. This writ petition was allowed by the High Court and an appeal from the decision of the Single Judge of the High Court was also dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court. Hence the State has filed the present appeal. 5. The purpose of providing employment to a dependent of a Government servant dying in harness in preference to anybody else, is to mitigate the hardship caused to the family of the employee on account of his unexpected death while still in service. To alleviate the distress of the family, such appointments are permissible on compassionate grounds provided there are Rules providing for such appointment. The purpose is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased Government servant. None of these considerations can operate when the application is made after a long period of time such as seventeen years in the present case. 6. We may, in this connection, refer to only one judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India v. Bhagwan Singh. In this case, the application for appointment on similar compassionate grounds was made twenty years after the railway servant's death. This Court observed: The reason for making compassionate appointment, which is exceptional, is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a Government servant who dies in harness, when there is no other earning member in the family. (iii). It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar V. State of Bihar and ors., as reported in (2000)7 SCC 192, at paragraph nos. 2 and 3, as under: 2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has placed strong reliance on the decision of a learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court in Chandra Bhushan v. State of Bihar. Learned Senior Counsel points out that it was held in that case that an applicant's right cannot be defeated on the ground of delay caused by authorities which was beyond the control of the applicant. Learned Senior Counsel further points out that instead of following the above judgment, the same learned Judge has now held on 21 -4 -1997 that the application is time -barred. Learned counsel has placed before us a judgment of this Court in Director of Education (Secondary) v. Pushpendra Kumar. He submits that, in this case, a direction was given to create supernumerary posts. 3. We are unable to agree with the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. This Court has held in a number of cases that compassionate appointment is intended to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden crisis resulting due to death of the breadearner who had left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In fact such a view has been expressed in the very decision cited by the petitioner in Director of Education v. Pushpendra Kumar. It is also significant to notice that on the date when the first application was made by the petitioner on 2 -6 -1988, the petitioner was a minor and was not eligible for appointment. This is conceded by the petitioner. There cannot be reservation of a vacancy till such time as the petitioner becomes a major after a number of years, unless there are some specific provisions. The very basis of compassionate appointment is to see that the family gets immediate relief. (iv) It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Santosh Kumar Dubey v. State of Uttar Pradesh and ors., as reported in : (2009)6 SCC 481, especially at paragraph nos.11 and 12, as under: 11. The very concept of giving a compassionate appointment is to tide over the financial difficulties that are faced by the family of the deceased due to the death of the earning member of the family. There is immediate loss of earning for which the family suffers financial hardship. The benefit is given so that the family can tide over such financial constrains. 12. The request for appointment on compassionate grounds should be reasonable and proximate to the time of the death of the bread earner of the family, inasmuch as the very purpose of giving such benefit is to make financial help available to the family to overcome sudden economic crisis occurring in the family of the deceased who has died in harness. But this, however, cannot be another source of recruitment. This also cannot be treated as a bonanza and also as a right to get an appointment in government service. (v) Moreover, paragraph no.13 of the counter affidavit, filed by the respondents, reads as under: 13. That it is stated that in order to ascertain the genuinity and dependency of the applicant/petitioner for appointment the respondent company relied upon the following records of the company in respect of the deceased employee and wherein name of the petitioner should appear in any of these records: i). Service book and service sheet exerts; ii). Gratuity nomination form iii). LTC/LLTC option form A iv). CMPF declaration 'A'. Further, paragraph no.9 of the sur -rejoinder affidavit, filed by the respondents, reads as under: 9. That it is stated that surprisingly the petitioner's name did not appear in the L.T.C. option form filled in on 31.1.1984 whereas in the service sheet exerts circulated in the year, 1987, the petitioner's name has been purportedly suggested mentioning his age as 12 years. This creates a doubt over the genuinity of the petitioner for employment, as he being shown 12 years of age in the service sheet exerts in the year, 1997 his name could have certainly appeared in the LTC option form filled in three years back on 31.1.1984. Looking to the aforesaid contentions also, it is highly doubtful that the petitioner is the son of the deceased employee of the respondents, as nowhere his name has been reflected, as stated in paragraph no.13. ;