SURESH CHAND Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner is challenging the order dated 30.7.2009, by which his application for compassionate appointment has been rejected. The petitioner's mother was an employee, who died on 26.5.2003 and after three years of the death of the mother, the petitioner moved an application for compassionate appointment on 8.9.2006. The respondent has considered the claim of the petitioner and has rejected the claim on the ground that 1) the petitioner moved the application after three years of death; 2) the petitioner is 39 years old; 3) the petitioner got Rs. 4,40,873/- towards the various benefits etc. and there was no financial crises; 4) all the three daughters have got married; and 5) the petitioner was not able to substantiate financial crises on account of the death of his mother.

(2.) I do find any error in the impugned order. First, the petitioner is challenging the impugned order after two years, secondly, the petitioner moved the application after three years from the date of death of his mother and thirdly, the petitioner is 39 years old and have received Rs. 4,40,4873/-. The compassionate appointment is exception to the general rules of recruitment. Therefore, it has to be considered strictly in accordance to rules and the principle laid down by the Court. It has been held by the Apex Court that compassionate appointment is given to meet immediate financial crisis arises on account of death of the deceased. Therefore, it is on the petitioner to make out a case that on the death of employee the financial crisis arose and the same continues.

(3.) Rule 5 of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servant (Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974 provides for recruitment to a member of the family of the deceased which reads as follows: