APATESH RAI Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SUDHIR Agarwal, J. The petitioner claims compassionate appoint ment on the ground that his wife who was appointed as Shiksha Mitra for the Session 2002-03 and continued thereafter, died on 22. 5. 2008 and after her death the petitioner has moved an application seeking compassionate appointment but neither any decision has been taken thereafter nor he has been provided compas sionate appointment. He, therefore, prayed that this application be directed to be decided by the respondent No. 4.

(2.) HOWEVER, in my view, the writ petition is thoroughly misconceived and, therefore, there is no question of directing the respondent No. 4 to decide the aforesaid application of petitioner. It is not disputed by the petitioner that there is no provision either statutory or otherwise providing for any scheme of compas sionate appointment to the heirs of the person who died while working as Shiksha Mitra. It is well settled, if there is no scheme for providing compassionate appoint ment the same cannot be claimed or granted as held by the Apex Court in Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Devki Devi and others, 2006 (5) SCC 523 and the same has been followed in the case of State Bank of India v. Somvir Singh, JT 2007 (3) SC 398 wherein the Apex Court held as under: "there is no right whatsoever nature to claim compassionate appoint ment on any ground other than one, if any, conferred by the employer by way of scheme or instructions as the case may be. "

(3.) THE writ petition, therefore, lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. .