Allahabad High Court rejects claim of compassionate appointment after 27 years delay of adopted son

Allahabad High Court

   

Allahabad High Court: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J. dismissed a writ petition filed for claiming compassionate appointment stating that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed or offered after a significant lapse of time and after crisis is over.

Petitioner claimed to be the adopted son of late Ram Achal Singh through adoption deed dated 23-10-1990 who had died in harness on 31-01-1995. Counsel of the petitioner submitted that petitioner was given assurance for compassionate appointment, therefore, he remained silent however on 17-08-1999, he submitted an application for compassionate appointment. The claim of petitioner was rejected on the ground that adopted son was not included in the definition of ‘family' under Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (“Rules, 1974”) . Thus, the instant petition.

Counsel for petitioner submitted that cause of petitioner still survives and adopted son is now included in the definition of family, therefore, his claim may be considered and petitioner be appointed on compassionate ground.

Standing Counsel appearing for State-Respondents, submitted that Ram Achal Singh died way back on 31-01-1995, i.e., 27 years ago, therefore, even the petitioner has purported right of compassionate appointment, it could not be considered at such belated stage.

The Court heard the parties and reproduced two recent judgments of the Supreme Court in relation to Compassionate Employment first being Government of India v. P. Venkatesh, (2019) 15 SCC 613 and Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman and Managing Director v. Parden Oraon, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 299.

It was then noted that in the death of the employee was not in dispute and petitioner for the first time approached respondents on 17-08-1999, i.e., after more than four years. Thereafter petitioner remained silent for some time and again approached respondents in the year 2001 which was again rejected. Relying on these judgments the Court said that the object of compassionate appointment is to tide over the immediate financial crisis suffered by the bereaved family due to unexpected death of employee concerned. The substantial delay in the present case is now more than 27 years which goes against the claim of petitioner.

The Court held that an amendment was carried out which was published in U.P. Gazette dated 22-12-2011 wherein adopted son was also included. Therefore, the impugned order cannot be faulted since at that time adopted son was not included under the definition of ‘family'.

Finally, the Court while dismissing the petition held that the claim of petitioner was rightly rejected by impugned order as well as considering the claim of petitioner for compassionate appointment at belated stage, after 27 years of death of his father, cannot be sustained.

[Sanjay Kumar Singh v. State of U.P., Writ – A No. – 47252 of 2003, decided on 03-08-2022]


Advocates who appeared in this case :

A.K. Dubey, Arvind Tripathi, B.K.Tripathi, M.P. Pandey, Pradeep Singh Sengar, S.K.Yadav, Advocates, Counsel for the Petitioner;

C.S.C., A.K.Dubey, B.K. Tripathi, S.K. Yadav, Advocates, Counsel for the Respondent.


*Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.

Join the discussion

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.