# Pushpendra Singh v. Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C., Aligarh and another

- **Citation:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad #39492
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 1999-06-30
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pushpendra-singh-v-regional-manager-u-p-s-r-t-c-aligarh-and-another-39492
- **Pages:** 2

## Text

1ALL] Pushpendra Singh V. Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C., Aligarh and another

69
case in case if any application is moved by
the wife.
Application Allowed.

$33(//$7( -85,6',&7,21
$33(//$7( -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 1. 0,75$ &-
7+( +21·%/( 1. 0,75$ &-
7+( +21·%/( 65 6,1*+ -
7+( +21·%/( 65 6,1*+ -

6SHFLDO $SSHDO 1R RI

3XVKSHQGUD 6LQJK
«$SSHOODQW
9HUVXV
5HJLRQDO 0DQDJHU 83 6WDWH 5RDG 7UDQVSRUW
&RUSRUDWLRQ $OLJDUK DQRWKHU«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH $SSHOODQW
6KUL 'KDQ 3UDNDVK
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQW
6KUL 6DPLU 6KDUPD

'\LQJ LQ +DUQHVV 5XOHV (PSOR\HH GLHG LQ
KDUQHVV RQ $SSOLFDWLRQ IRU JLYLQJ
DSSRLQWPHQW RQ FRPSDVVLRQDWH JURXQG ZDV
PRYHG E\ KLV VRQ RQ DWWDLQLQJ PDMRULW\ RQ

WKH
FRPSDVVLRQDWH
DSSRLQWPHQW FDQQRW EH JLYHQ DIWHU D ODSVH RI
UHDVRQDEOH SHULRG DQG DIWHU WKH FULVHV LV
RYHU +RZHYHU D GLUHFWLRQ ZDV LVVXHG WR WKH
UHVSRQGHQWV WR FRQVLGHU KLV DSSOLFDWLRQ IRU
WHPSRUDU\ DSSRLQWPHQW LI WKH IDPLO\ LV VWLOO
IHHOLQJ XQGHU WKH ILQDQFLDO FULVHV 7KH FDVH
ODZ UHIHUUHG ,9 6&& SDJH
, 6/5 SDJH 6/5 SDJH
+HOG23DUD
%\
UHDVRQ
RI
UHOLDQFH
XSRQ
WKH
VDLG
REVHUYDWLRQV DV DOVR XSRQ WKH 5XOHV ZKLFK
HQYLVDJH FRQVLGHUDWLRQ RI DQ DSSOLFDWLRQ IRU
FRPSDVVLRQDWH DSSRLQWPHQW PDGH HYHQ DIWHU
ILYH \HDUV RI WKH GHDWK RI WKH HPSOR\HH LI WKH
FLUFXPVWDQFHV
VR
ZDUUDQW
WKH DSSHDO LV
GLVSRVHG RI SRVWIL[HG ZLWK WKH REVHUYDWLRQ
WKDW LQ FDVH DQ DSSOLFDWLRQ LV PRYHG WKH
UHVSRQGHQWV PD\ UHFNRQ ZLWK WKH IHDVLELOLW\
RI D WHPSRUDU\ DSSRLQWPHQW LI WKH IDPLO\ LV
VWLOO UHHOLQJ XQGHU ILQDQFLDO VWUDLWV

By the Court
1. Appeal on hand stems from the
judgment and order dated 4.11.99 passed in
Writ Petition No.46695 of 1999 thereby
dismissing the writ petition in limine. The
facts constitutive of the grievances of the
appellant is that the appellant's father who
was serving in the U.P. State Road Transport
Corporation, died in harness on 21.8.1984. At
the time of the death of his father, the
appellant was minor and he attained majority
on 12.12.98. He applied for compassionate
appointment on 23.2.99 permissible under the
provisions of the U.P. (Recruitment of
Government Servants) Dying in Harness
Rules, 1974. The claim of the appellant for
compassionate employment under the Dying
in Harness Rules met the fate of rejection at
the end of Regional Manager U.P. State Road
Transport Corporation, Aligarh vide order
dated 30.6.1999 premised on the ground that
the application was not moved within five
years of the death of the employee.

2. The learned Single Judge dismissed the
writ petition. The quintessence of the order
dismissing the writ petition is that after such a
long time of death of the deceased, the right
of the claimant stood extinguished.

3. We have heard Sri Dhan Prakash,
learned counsel for the appellant and Sri
Samir Sharma, counsel appearing for the
respondent no. 2.

4. The rule of compassionate is an
exception to the general mode of appointment
strictly on the basis of open invitation of
applications on merits. It is born of pure
humanitarian consideration and interest of
justice, reckoning into consideration the fact
that unless some source of sustenance is
provided the family would not be able to fend
for itself on its own. 'The whole object of
granting compassionate employment is thus to
enable the family to tide over the sudden
crisis'- Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of
Haryana and Others1. In the said case, the
Supreme Court has held the view that that
mere death of an employee in harness does

1 (1994) 4 SCC 138
INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2000
70
not entitle a family to get employment as of
right irrespective of "the financial condition
of the family of the deceased". "The
compassionate appointment", it has further
been held, "cannot be granted after a lapse of
reasonable period which must be specified in
the
rules.
The
consideration
for
such
employment is not a vested right, which can
be exercised at any time in future. The object
being to enable the family to get over the
financial crisis which it faces at the time of
the death of the sole bread winner, the
compassionate
employment
cannot
be
claimed and offered whatever the lapse of
time and after the crisis is over."

5. In Jagdish Prasad v. State of
Haryana2 the question of appointment on
compassionate ground to an applicant who
was four years old at the time when his father,
an ex-employee died in harness came up for
consideration before the Apex Court. It was
contended that since the appellant therein was
minor when the father died in harness, the
compassionate
circumstances
having
continued till the date he made an application
for appointment, he was entitled to be
appointed on compassionate ground. The
contention was met with disapproval by the
Supreme Court in the following words.

"The very object of appointment of a
dependent of the deceased employees who die
in harness is to relieve unexpected immediate
hardship and distress caused to the family by
sudden demise of the earning member of the
family. Since the death occurred way back in
1971, in which year, the appellant was four
years old, it cannot be said that he is entitled
to be appointed after he attained majority long
thereafter. In other words, if that contention is
accepted, it amounts to another mode of
recruitment of the dependent of a deceased
Government servant which cannot been
encouraged, dehors the recruitment rules."

2 1996 (1) SLR 7
6. The view taken in Haryana State
Electricity Board v. Naresh anwar3, reliance
on which has been placed by Sri Dhan
Prakash during the course of his arguments is
not in any manner disparate with the view
taken by the Apex Court in the cases referred
to supra. The observations made in para 11 of
the report that if a representation is made, the
concerned authority namely, the Haryana
State Electricity Board would consider the
same with such benignity as the applicant
therein might deserve in the facts of the case,
was not a declaration of law extending
coverage of Art. 141 of the Constitution. The
impugned decisions do not suffer from the
blemish of any infirmity. As a result of
foregoing discussion the appeal is bereft of
merits. However, by reason of reliance upon
the said observations as also upon the Rules
which
envisage
consideration
of
an
application for compassionate appointment
made even after five years of the death of the
employee if the circumstances so warrant, the
appeal is disposed of post-fixed with the
observation that in case an application is
moved, the respondents may reckon with the
feasibility of a temporary appointment if the
family is still reeling under financial straits.

Petition disposed of.

25,*,1$/ -85,6',&$7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&$7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()2
%()25(
5(
7+( +21·%/( 6+$ 5$=$-
7+( +21·%/( 6+$ 5$=$-
7+( +21·%/( .5,6+1$ .80$57+( +21·%/( .5,6+1$ .80$5-

&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

7KH VROH SHWLWLRQHU 6XUDM %DOL .DWL\DU KDV
EHHQ GLHG RQ DQG DIWHU KLP WKH
QDPHV RI
6PW 6DW\DZDWL .DWL\DU RWKHUV«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
6WDWH RI 83 DQRWKHU
«5HVSRQGHQW

3 1996(2) SLR 11