DHARMENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT petitioner-appellant, aggrieved by judgment and order dated 02.04.2009 passed by a learned Judge in Civil Misc. WRIT Petition No. 18144 of 2009 dismissing the writ petition, has preferred this special appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952. Short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the father of writ petitioner-appellant (hereinafter referred to as the ''petitioner') was an employee of the State Government, who died while in service on 30th December 1996. Since the petitioner was minor at that time, the mother of the petitioner filed application dated 14.02.1997 for appointment of his son on compassionate ground. By letter dated 18th March, 1997, it was communicated to the mother of the petitioner that in case her son, the petitioner herein, moves application for compassionate appointment after attaining majority, his application for appointment on compassionate ground would be considered in accordance with law. The petitioner after attaining majority filed application for appointment on compassionate ground, which was rejected by the State Government by order dated 24.11.2008. Petitioner challenged the aforesaid order in the writ petition, which has given rise to the impugned order. The learned Judge, taking into account that the application for appointment was filed belatedly and further petitioner's mother was getting family pension of Rs. 5,625/- per month, declined to issue any direction for petitioner's appointment on compassionate ground. Mr. Manoj Kumar Singh, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submits that once it was communicated that the case for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground shall be considered after he attains majority, the respondents erred in denying him the appointment on compassionate ground. He further submits that family pension of mother of the petitioner cannot be a ground for denying appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground. We do not find any substance in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. It is well settled that compassionate appointment is granted to the dependent of a government servant to mitigate the financial hardship, which the family suffers on account of death of the bread earner. Admittedly, petitioner's father died on 30th December, 1996 when he was minor and the mother of the petitioner is getting family pension of Rs. 5,625/- per month. Financial condition of a family is a relevant consideration for granting appointment on compassionate ground. Any direction for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground would amount to providing for reservation on the said ground. We are of the opinion that consideration of the matter by the learned Judge does not suffer from any error calling for interference in this appeal. We do not find any merit in the appeal and it is dismissed accordingly.