KUSHAGRA SAXENA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Notice on behalf of the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 has been accepted by the Learned Chief Standing Counsel. In view of the proposed order notice to opposite party No. 3 is hereby dispensed with.

(2.) The writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 24.07.2012 whereby the claim of petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that the mother of petitioner is an employee of the Oriental Insurance Company Private Ltd. which is a Corporation under the Central Government and, as such, the case of petitioner is not covered under U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servant (Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974 (for short 'the Rules').

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner submits that father of petitioner late Kamal Kumar Saxena, was a State Government servant. He died on 03.12.2009 while working on the post of 'Samiksha Adhikari' (Reviewing Officer) at Civil Secretariat, Lucknow. The mother of petitioner is suffering with serious ailment of Hepatitis 'C which is incurable and her treatment is going on at SGPGIMS, Lucknow. The family of petitioner is in need of money and, as such, the mother of petitioner had made a request for considering the candidature of petitioner for compassionate appointment in place of her husband late Kamal Kumar Saxena. It is submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that one Smt. Latika has been appointed on compassionate ground under the Rules, in place of her father, although her mother was already working on the post of Telephone Operator in the Secretariat, Lucknow. As such, there are instances where the opposite parties have given compassionate appointment to the dependent of a deceased employee relaxing the Rules. As such, the candidature of petitioner cannot be rejected on the ground that since his mother is working in a Company of the Central Government, therefore, he is not covered under the Rules. The order impugned is, therefore, not sustainable.