Court No. - 26 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 37005 of 2006 Petitioner :- Rajrani Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another Petitioner Counsel :- G.R.S. `Pal' Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Anil Kumar,J.
Heard V.K. Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.R.
Pandey , learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties.
The facts , in brief, as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner are
that the mother of the petitioner who was working on the post of Sweeper in
Nagar Palika Parishad, Ujhani Budaun died on 27.3.2004 during the tenure of
his service and after her death , on 1.5.2004 an application has been moved by
the petitioner, the daughter of the deceased Smt.Anguri Devi to consider her
case for giving appointment under dying in harness rules.
It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
when her case has not been considered by the respondents, the present writ
petition has been filed for redressal of his grievance with the prayer that the
respondent no.2 may be directed to consider her case for employment on
compassionate ground.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
In respect to the matter relating to appointment under dying in harness
rules on compassionate ground, the Apex Court very clearly said that no one
can ask to consider his case in a manner not provided in the scheme for
compassionate appointment . It is incumbent upon the authorities concerned to
consider the claim of compassionate appointment strictly in accordance with
the relevant parameters provided in the scheme or the rules and regulations
applicable in this regard . The Apex Court in the case of Union Bank of
India and others Vs. M.T. Latheesh, 2006(7) SCC 350 has held as under:-
2
“In the present case, by declining the
application submitted by the respondent after the
proper consideration of the same in the light of the
relevant parameters the appellant-Bank cannot be
said to have acted in an arbitrary manner regardless
of the constitutional principles.
It is also settled law that the specially
constituted authorities in the rules or regulations like
the competent authority in this case are better
equipped to decide the cases on facts of the case an
their objective finding arrived on the appreciation of
the full fact should not be disturbed. Learned single
Judge and the Division Bench by directing
appointment has fettered the discretion of the
appointing and selecting authorities the Bank had
considered the application of the respondent in terms
of the statutory scheme framed by the Bank for such
appointment. After that even though the Bank found
the respondent ineligible for appointment to its
service, the High Court has found him eligible and
has ordered his appointment. This is against the law
laid down by this Court. It is settled law that the
principles regarding compassionate appointment
that compassionate appointment being an exception
to the general rule the appointment has to be
exercised only in warranting situations and
circumstances existing in granting appointment and
guiding factors should be financial condition of the
family. The respondent is not entitled to claim relief
under the new scheme because the financial status of
the family is much above the criterion fixed in the
new scheme”.
In the case of State Bank of India and another Vs. Somvir Singh
(2007) 4 SCC 778 the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that mere hardship does
not entitle the legal heirs of the deceased employee for compassionate
appointment unless it is provided under the scheme or the Rules. The
compassionate appointment can be made applicable only strictly in
accordance with the scheme and not beyond that.(see also Mumtaz Yunus
Mulani Vs. State of maharashtra and others, 2008 (11) SCC 384)
Admittedly, in the present case , the petitioner is a married daughter of
3
the deceased Smt. Anguri Devi who died in harness as such she is not entitled
for compassionate appointment under U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of
Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules , 1974 , so no mandamus or
direction should be issued for giving compassionate appointment.
Keeping in view the said facts , the present writ petition filed by the
petitioner lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed. It is dismissed
accordingly.
No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 20.7.2010
dk/-