Read Time: 06 minutes
The application for compassionate appointment was made in 2012, however, until 2017, nothing was done to pursue it. Only thereafter, the petitioner sought its revival which DIOS denied.
The Allahabad High Court recently dismissed a petition filed challenging the order rejecting petitioner’s application for grant of compassionate appointment for reason of delay of 5 years.
The petitioner had filed an application for compassionate appointment in 2012, however, untill 2017, he took no steps in pursuing the application.
The bench of Justice Saumitra Dayal Singh observed, “Grant of compassionate appointment is neither a source or mode of appointment. It is an exception to the rule of equality. It exists for the benefit of an individual and family unit at the cost of the society, in general”.
In view of the same, court opined that the reasoning given by the District Inspector of Schools was not perverse as the delay was fatal to the claim made.
The petition was moved alleging that on the date of filing the application for compassionate appointment, the petitioner had only passed intermediate examination, thus not being qualified for being appointed as a teacher.
Only during the interregnum arising thereafter and before the matter was resurrected in the year 2017, the petitioner acquired the qualification of Graduation and B.Ed, court was informed by the petitioner’s counsel.
However, court noted that petitioner could not be allowed to gain eligibility during the interregnum and then resurrect or revive his application for grant of compassionate appointment overlooking the time that had gone by.
Moreover, court highlighted that despite possessing two degrees- qualification of Graduation and B.Ed, the petitioner was willing to take a Class IV employment. “It is not for the writ Court to pass such direction to allow the petitioner take a job lower than his qualification that he may otherwise earn on his merit, whenever he may choose to act on it,” Court said in this regard.
Court stressed that though the petitioner filed the application on January 4, 2012 after his father’s death in June 2011 but after making the application, he did precious little.
“Therefore, the time allowed to be spent in allowing the application to remain pending from 2012 to 2017 without effort to seek its expeditious disposal is fatal to the claim being made by the petitioner,” the court held.
Accordingly, while stressing that the provision for compassionate appointment cannot be termed as a largesse granted by the State to the family of the deceased employee, court dismissed the petition finding it sans merit.
“While people with more disadvantages may compete at public employment only because their parents though dead may not have been engaged in public employment, a person claiming compassionate appointment though generally better off, economically and socially, may be accommodated only to allow the family unit of the deceased employee to tide over hardships of life,” Court observed.
Case Title: Ajnabh Kumar Pandey v. State Of U.P. And 3 Others
Please Login or Register