AMIT KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE father of the petitioner, was Senior clerk (a Class III post) in Nagar Panchayat, Phoolpur, Azamgarh. He died in harness on 20 -7 -1998. The petitioner thereafter applied for appointment on compassionate ground under the Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. By an order dated 13 -12 -1999 the petitioner was given appointment on a class IV post as Peon in Nagar Panchayat Phoolpur, Azamgarh. The petitioner' now claims that since he is qualified for being appointed on a class III post, which was not vacant at the time when he was given appointment on compassionate ground in the year 1999 and has now fallen vacant on 10 -12 -2003, he should be adjusted on such class III post. In support of his contention he relies on a Government Order dated 28 -5 -2004 wherein in Paragraph 3 it has been stated that the dependents of the employee who die in harness should not be appointed on a higher post than that on which the deceased employee was working. According to the petitioner the dependent of an employee thus ought to be given employment on such post on which the deceased employee was working if he has the requisite qualifications for appointment on such post. He thus contends that since the petitioner has the requisite qualification for appointment on a class III post, he should be adjusted on such post which has now fallen vacant.

(2.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing counsel appearing for the State -Respondents and considering the facts and circumstances of this case, I do not find that the petitioner is entitled to the reliefs claimed in this writ petition.

(3.) FOLLOWING the decision of the Apex Court in State of Rajasthan v. Umrao Singh, 1994 (6) S.C.C. 560, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dinesh Chandra Sharma v. District Inspector of Schools, Meerut, 2001(1) LBESR 25 (All) : 2000(3) UPLBEC 2522, has held that no person is entitled to claim the benefit of Dying in Harness Rules more than once. In the present case, admittedly there was no class III post vacant at the time when appointment had been given to the petitioner on a class IV post. The petitioner having once accepted such appointment on compassionate ground, cannot now after more than four years claim adjustment on a class III post when it later falls vacant. The law does not provide for a person to be given the benefit of compassionate appointment more than once. As such no mandamus can be issued to the respondent authorities directing them to provide employment to the petitioner on a class III post when it falls vacant after four years of the petitioner having already availed the benefit of appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules. He would be entitled to promotion on such post, in accordance with law, or else if the post is to be filled up by direct recruitment, he can compete with other candidates and seek such appointment if he is otherwise found eligible and entitled for such appointment.