(Hemant Gupta and Vikram Nath, JJ.)
Ganesh Shankar Shukla ____________________________ Appellant;
v.
State of U.P. and Another _______________________ Respondent(s).
Civil Appeal No. _________ of 2022 [@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 3528 of 2022], decided on July 15, 2022
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on 26.10.2021, whereby an intra-court appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 04.08.2021 was dismissed, wherein the appellant had claimed appointment on compassionate grounds.
3. The facts of the present case show complete apathy on the part of the State in dealing with the minor children of the deceased Geeta Devi, who was working as a teacher. She died in harness on 13.03.2003. Sh. Kripa Shankar Shukla, father of the appellant, died earlier. At the time of death of the mother, the appellant was five years old, whereas his elder sister was eight years old.
4. The appellant and his sister had to invoke the jurisdiction of the State Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow, for release of pension on account of death of Geeta Devi. It shows that even after the death of Geeta Devi, the minor children were not paid the pension leading them into penury. The order was passed by the Tribunal on 31.03.2016, but still payment of pension was not made. The order was implemented only in the year 2018, after filing of contempt petition.
5. The appellant applied for compassionate appointment on 17.02.2020, which request was declined. The learned counsel for the respondent-State argued that the compassionate appointment is not the source of recruitment and is to be offered to meet the emergent financial distress suffered by the family. Since the appellant has survived for 17 years after the death of his mother, therefore, the appellant has lost the right to claim compassionate appointment. The learned counsel for the State also relies upon Rule 5 of U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Govt. Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, which contemplates the time of five years to make an application to seek compassionate appointment, though there is a provision for relaxation of such time limit.
6. In fact, both the children of Geeta Devi continued to be minor even after five years. Therefore, the rigour of Rule 5 cannot be extended in the case of the present appellant who was minor at the time of death of his mother, the father having died earlier.
7. In these circumstances, even when the appellant had survived on account of the financial support of the maternal grandparents, the respondent is not justified in raising a technical plea of delay in seeking appointment on compassionate grounds in the facts of the present appeal.
8. Some of the Judgments have been referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent-State, but it is the facts of each case, which are relevant. The facts of the present case show total inhumane approach in dealing with two minor children of the deceased. The delay was on account of the fact that they had no money, except the bare survival provided by the grandparents.
9. Consequently, the present appeal is allowed in view of the peculiar hard facts of the case. The appellant to apply for compassionate appointment to the State, giving his educational qualifications within one week. Considering the said application, the respondent-State will make appointment within next two months.
10. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, is/are disposed of.
———
