ASHOK KUMAR VARMA Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SRI H.G.S. Parihar, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has no instructions in the matter. No other counsel has appeared. However, I have perused the record. The petitioner has sought compassionate appointment and by means of the order dated 24.3.1993 he was appointed as Class IV employee. The aforesaid order is under challenge and the petitioner has sought a mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint him on Class III post on compassionate basis.

(2.) REPEATEDLY , it has been held that the purpose and object of compassionate appointment is to enable the members of family of the deceased employee in penury, due to sudden demise of the sole breadwinner, get support and succour to sustain themselves and not to face hardship for their bare sustenance.

(3.) IN S. Mohan v. Government of Tamil Nadu and Anr. : 1999 (I) LLJ 539 the Supreme Court said: