DILIP KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-respondents.

(2.) Learned Standing Counsel, however, submits that all these decisions have been considered by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Dubey v. State of U.P. and others, 2014 2 ADJ 312, wherein it has been held that there is no general or vested right to compassionate appointment. It can be claimed only where a scheme or rules provide for such appointment. Where such a provision is made in an administrative scheme or statutory rules, compassionate appointment must strictly be within the scheme or, as the case may be, the rules. It further held that the object and purpose of providing compassionate appointment is to enable the dependent members of the family of a deceased employee to tide over the immediate financial crisis caused by the death of the bread earner. It further held that where a long lapse of time has occurred since the date of death of the deceased employee, the sense of immediacy for seeking compassionate appointment would cease to exist and this would be a relevant circumstance which must weigh with the authorities in determining as to whether a case for grant of compassionate appointment has been made out. It also held that the burden lies on the applicant, where there is a delay in making an application within the period of five years to establish a case on the basis of reasons and justification supported by document and other evidence. It is for the State Government after considering all the facts to take an appropriate decision. The power to relax is in the nature of an exception and is conditioned by existence of objective considerations to the satisfaction of the Government.

(3.) The Hon'ble Supreme Court also in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and others, 1994 4 SCC 138, has categorically deprecated the practice of granting appointment after considerable delay from the date of death of the deceased employee and has held that the appointment to the exclusion to all other qualified persons cannot be claimed as a matter of right The purpose of giving compassionate appointment is to tide over immediate financial crises that is confronted by the family upon sudden death of the sole bread earner. In the present case, if there was such a financial crises at the time of death of the deceased employee on 18.10.2002 the wife could have asked for compassionate appointment instead she made an application that as and when her son may attain majority, his case may be considered. Apparently, there was enough means for the family to survive for 16 long years. In the impugned order also the financial condition of the family has been considered and noted.