Anil Kumar, J.@mdashHeard Sri A.K. Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Sri Nipendra Mishra, learned Counsel for the respondents.
2. Sri A.K. Mishra, learend counsel for the petitioner in brief has submitted the facts of the present case that petitioner''s mother Smt. Sharda Devi was working in erstwhile U.P. State Electricity Board on the post of Coolie and during the tenure of her services she died in harness on 02.06.1992 and at the time of her death petitioner was 11 years of old and a daughter 13 years of age. Learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that initially the maternal uncle of the petitioner approached the authorities of the U.P. State Electricity Board now known as U.P. Power Corporation Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as to the Corporation) for giving compassionate appointment to the petitioner as there was no other member in the family to earn the livelihood.
3. However, it was informed to the petitioner that the same could not be given as the petitioner is minor. Subsequently, thereafter when the petitioner attained the age of 18 years on 01.07.1999, then an application has been moved on his behalf for giving compassionate appointment, the said application was recommended by the letter dated 13.09.1999 by Sub-Divisional Officer, Electricity Distribution SubDivision(R), Bulandshaher of the Corporation to the Higher Authority. Therefore, the matter in question kept on lingering on one or other pretext.
4. Lastly, the Chief Engineer (Hydle) of the Corporation by order dated 26.05.2000 forwarded the petitioner''s case to the Dy. General Manager, Electricity Circle of the Corporation, Bulandshahar with the direction that the case should be recommended by the Appointing Authority. On 18.07.2000 the Appointing Authority/Dy. General Manager, Bulandshahar of the Corporation was recommended the same to the Chief Engineer (Hydle) vide letter dated 01.08.2000.
5. Further, by means of the impugned order dated 18.01.2002 (Annexure-1) it was informed to the petitioner that his case for compassionate appointment cannot be considered as the same is barred by limitation. Hence the present writ petition has been filed thereby challenging the order dated 18.01.2002 (Annexure- 1) passed by O.P. No. 1.
6. Learned Counsel for the petitioner while assailing the order dated 18.01.2002 submits that the same is illegal denying appointment to the petitioner under the dying in harness rules is contrary to the very object and policy of giving the compassionate appointment.
7. He further submits that the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been wrongly rejected by the authority concerned as there is no other member to earn the livelihood in the family of the deceased Smt. Sharda Devi who was an employee of the Corporation and died in harness, keeping in view the said fact and the financial condition of the petitioner the action on the part of the respondents thereby denying the petitioner''s claim for appointment on compassionate ground is arbitrary, illegal and bad in the eye of law, liable to be set aside.
8. Learned Counsel for the respondent submits that the matter of giving compassionate appointment in the Corporation is governed by rule known as the U.P. Parishidiya Vigyapti No. 2 1/Adhiniyam 23/Raa. ./98-4/Vinidhan 93 Dinank 22.1.98, and as per the provision provided under the Uttar Pradesh Sevakal Me Mrit Sarkari Sevako Ke Aashrito Ki Bharti Niyamawali-1974 which covers the field. Further, as per the said rules the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment. So, the same has been rightly rejected by order dated 18.01.2002.
9. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.
10. The object and the genesis of compassionate appointment is on account of "immediate hardship" and to mitigate ''distress'' in the family of a deceased employee. It is not planned and cannot be delayed or postponed, as that will frustrate the very object of the compassionate appointment.
11. Further, the provisions pertains to compassionate appointment has been dealt by Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of
12. In the case of
Para 17 - Thus, apart from the direction as to appointment on compassionate grounds being against statutory provisions, such direction does not take note of this fact. Whatever it may be, the Court should not have directed the appointment on compassionate grounds. The jurisdiction under mandamus cannot be exercised in that fashion. It should have merely directed consideration of the claim of the second respondent. To straightaway direct the appointment would only put the appellant Corporation in piquant situation.
13. In the case of
14. In the case of
The High Court could have merely directed consideration of the claim of the respondent in accordance with the rules. It cannot direct appointment. Such a direction does not fall within the scope of mandamus. Judicial review, it has been repeatedly emphasised, is directed against the decision-making process and not against the decision itself; and it is no part of the court''s duty to exercise the power of the authorities itself. There is widespread misconception on the scope of interference in judicial review.
15. In the case of the
The object underlying a provision for grant of compassionate employment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread-earner which has left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. Out of pure humanitarian consideration and having regard to the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provide, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made for giving gainful appointment to one of the dependents of the deceased who may be eligible for such appointment.
16. In the case of
The purpose of providing employment to a dependent of a government servant dying in harness in preference to anybody else, is to mitigate the hardship caused to the family of the employee on account of his unexpected death while still in service. To alleviate the distress of the family, such appointments are permissible on compassionate grounds provided there are Rules providing for such appointment. The purpose is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased government servant. None of these considerations can operate when the application is made after a long period of time such as seventeen years in the present case.
We may, in this connection, refer to only one judgment of this Court in the case of Union of India v. Bhagwan Singh. In this case, the application for appointment on similar compassionate grounds was made twenty years after the railway servant''s death. This Court observed:
The reason for making compassionate appointment, which is exceptional, is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a government servant who dies in harness, when there is no other earning member in the family.
17. In the case of
18. In the case of
In
14. In
6. An employee of a State enjoys a status. Recruitment of employees of the State is governed by the rules framed under a statute or the proviso appended to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. In the matter of appointment, the State is obligated to give effect to the constitutional scheme of equality as adumbrated under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. All appointments, therefore, must conform to the said constitutional scheme. This Court, however, while laying emphasis on the said proposition carved out an exception in favour of the children or other relatives of the officer who dies or who becomes incapacitated while rendering services in the Police Department. See Yogender Pal Singh v. Union of India.
7. Public employment is considered to be a wealth. It in terms of the constitutional scheme cannot be given on descent. When such an exception has been carved out by this Court, the same must be strictly complied with. Appointment on compassionate ground is given only for meeting the immediate hardship which is faced by the family by reason of the death of the breadearner. When an appointment is made on compassionate ground, it should be kept confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve, the idea being not to provide for endless compassion.
19. In the case of
Besides, the deceased employee died in 2001 and petitioner''s family is maintaining itself till date and 8 years have already elapsed. The purpose of compassionate appointment is not for providing a post against post. It is not reservation in service by virtue of succession. If the family is not in penury and capable to maintain itself for a long time, no mandamus would be issued after a long time for providing compassionate appointment to a legal heir of the deceased employee. Recently in
20. In view of the abovesaid settled legal proposition of law on the point in issue and taking into consideration the facts of the present case that the petitioner''s mother died in the year 1992 and thereafter as per the own case of the petitioner when he attained the age of 18 years in the year 1999, an application on his behalf was given to concerned authority of the Corporation to consider his case for giving compassionate appointment i.e. after seven years from the date of his mother in harness on the basis of which he is claiming compassionate appointment, now 18 years have passed since then, and during the intervening period he is maintaining his family, so keeping in view the said facts, and taking into consideration the purpose of compassionate appointment is to mitigate financial assistance to the family of a deceased government servant who died in harness when there is no other earning member in the family, I do not find any justification and reason to interfere in the matter in question.
21. For the foregoing reasons, the present writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
22. No order as to costs.
