Compassionate appointments are meant to ease the financial burden of losing a loved one, not to reward the dependent with a higher post
Compassionate appointments are meant to ease the financial burden of losing a loved one, not to reward the dependent with a higher post.
Arpit Shukla v. State of UP & 4 Others
W.P. 193444/2023
Before Allahabad High Court
Disposed of on
By Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj Tewari J
Facts
Father of petitioner was working as Class-IV employee at Nagar Palika Parishad, Faridpur, Bareilly. During the course of service, father of petitioner died on 31.7.2022.
After his death, petitioner submitted an application for appointment as Class-III employee on compassionate ground, which was rejected.
Petitioner has filed an application before the District Magistrate upon which ADM has sought instruction from the respondent DM.
In the letter dt. 26.09.23, it was mentioned that no post is vacant for Class-III employee.
Further in light of Government Order dated 17.6.2014, dependent of deceased has no right to claim particular position or place.
It is the discretion of appointing authority to pass appropriate order warranted in the facts and circumstance of the case.
Letter dated 26.9.2023 was not communicated to the petitioner, but coming to know that his claim has been rejected, he has challenged the same by filing present petition.
Petitioner relied on Rule 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 and submitted that petitioner is entitled for appointment on the post for which he is having qualification.
Petitioner relied on the case of Smt. Premlata vs. State of U.P. and others 2nd Appeal Defective 620/2018 & Sushma Gosain vs. Union of India reported in 1989 (4) SCC 468
Submission of the Counsel for the State
In the light of Government Order dated 17.6.2014, petitioner has no right to claim particular post.
Apex Court has reversed the judgment passed in the case of Smt. Premlata v. State of U.P. and others with specific finding that mere qualification cannot be a ground for appointment on higher post than the post held by the deceased employee.
Under such facts and interpretation made by Apex Court, petitioner is not entitled for appointment on Class-III post on compassionate ground.
Observation of the Court
The post of Class IV which was available in the light of Government Order dated 17.6.2014, was offered to the petitioner, which was refused by petitioner only on the ground that he is having higher qualification.
Law of land is that legal heir cannot be given appointment on compassionate ground to a post higher than the post held by the deceased employee.
Therefore, in light of interpretation of Rule 5 of Rules 1974 made by the Apex Court as well as this Court, petitioner is not entitled for the post of Class-III on compassionate ground.
Seema Bhatnagar
