VIKAS PANDEY Vs. BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who had sought appointment on compassionate grounds in the Banaras Hindu University (hereinafter referred to as the ''University') has sought the quashing of the order dated 9th June, 2006 by which his claim was rejected. THE petitioner has also sought the quashing of the order dated 28/29th September, 2006 whereby the petitioner was informed that this request cannot be accepted as his claim had been rejected earlier.

(2.) THE petitioner claims to be the adopted son of Aditya Narain Pandey who was working as a Group ''D' employee in the University and who had died in harness on 9th May, 1983 while serving as a peon. THE petitioner whose date of birth is 10th June, 1980 was, therefore, only three years old when Aditya Narain Pandey died. THE petitioner submitted an application seeking appointment on compassionate ground after he attained majority. This application was received in the office of the Registrar of the University on 20th August, 2003. THE University by the communication dated 10/16th November, 2004 informed the petitioner that the request for compassionate appointment was considered by the Appointments Committee of the University in its meeting held on 2nd September, 2004 but the aforesaid Committee did not accept his request because the application was barred by time. THE petitioner again submitted an application dated 17th May, 2005 before the University mentioning therein that he had earlier submitted an application before the University when he was a minor but that application was rejected on the ground that appointment could not be given to a minor. He, therefore, prayed that compassionate appointment may now be given to him. This application was also rejected by the University by the order dated 9th June, 2006. Not being satisfied, the petitioner submitted yet another application dated 7th August, 2006 seeking compassionate appointment. This application was also rejected by the University by the communication dated 28/29th September, 2006 mentioning therein that his case was placed before the Compassionate Appointment Committee of the University which in its meeting held on 29th August, 2006 observed that his case had already been considered and rejected on 30th September, 2005 as being barred by time. THE petitioner was also informed that any request made by him in future for this purpose will not be entertained.

(3.) IN order to appreciate the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties it would first be appropriate to ascertain why compassionate appointment is provided to a member of the deceased employee.