TABASSUM Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Ved Prakash Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Akhilesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the respondents no.2, 3 and 4 and the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent no. 1.

(2.) The petitioner is seeking quashing of the order dated 30.12.2016 whereby her claim for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected. In the impugned order itself it has been mentioned that claim for appointment on compassionate ground shall be made within five years from the date of death of the bread winner of the family. The father of the petitioner is stated to have died on 2.01.2005. The petitioner passed her intermediate in the year 2014 and thereafter, submitted her application seeking appointment on compassionate ground on 6.4.2016 i.e. after 11 years from the date of death of the father of the petitioner. This writ petition filed in 2017 i.e. after 12 years of death of the bread winner of the family is grossly barred by laches.

(3.) As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana and others, (1994) 4 SCC 138 compassionate appointment is not a hereditary right but rather it is to be granted on a consideration of the financial distress and hardship being faced by the family of the deceased employee and in order to grant succor and immediate relief to the family of the deceased employee. If the family has been able to survive for 23 years after the death of the bread earner, the claim then only, survives on the right of heredity. Compassionate appointment cannot be granted by way of hereditary right.