Rishabh Raj Singh vs State of U.P. and Others

Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner died on 18.5.2001 in Harness while working on the post of Deputy Inspector General Karagar, Allahabad.

The mother of the petitioner moved an application dated 4.7.2001 before the respondent No. 2 requesting to reserve a post for compassionate appointment for her son, who is a minor at that time.

Pursuant to the application dated 4.7.2001, the Additional Director Genera) (Administrative), Karagar, Prashasan Avam Sudhar Sevayen, Uttar Pradesh, by means of letter dated 28th July, 2001 asking to the mother of the petitioner about her qualification and about the post for which she was intending to apply. Mother of the petitioner did not submit any claim or request for appointment on compassionate ground and according to the petitioner she decided to look after her family or whatever financial resources were available.

On 21.2.2006, the mother of the petitioner by a letter dated 28th July, 2001 proposed candidature of her selection for appointment on compassionate ground on the post of Vishesh Karyadhikari in pay scale of Rs. 6500-10500 (outside the purview of Uttar Pradesh, Public Service Commission) and application was moved by the mother of the petitioner before; State of U.P. through Principal Secretary, Karagar Prashasan Avam Sudhar Sevayen, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow praying for compassionate appointment of the petitioner, her son on the aforesaid post of Vishesh Karyadhikari considering the education qualification of the petitioner. The petitioner is B. Tech in Bio Technology and about of 22 years of age according to his date of birth 17.8.1985.

It appears that the Director General, Karagar, Prashasan Avam Sudhar Sevayen, Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow offered the petitioner to face Hindi Typist Test on 22.2,2007 for appointment on the post of Kanishtha Sahalk/typist.

The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the claim of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Vishesh Karyadhikari has not been decided. This consumerates education qualification and on the contrary he being offered the post of typist. It is vehemently urged as the father was the "Top Proposed" petitioner should be offered the post of Vishesh Karyadhikari in the pay scale of 6500-10550.

Particularly in view of the fact that another person in similar circumstances i.e. son of late R.S. Tripathi, Addl. Director General, Karagar has been given the said post It is alleged, that the petitioner cannot discriminated in the matter of employment and parity should be maintained. It is further urged that Government of U.P. is not interfered to decide the claim of the petitioner on the post of Vishesh Karyaadhikari and on the other hand is offering the petitioner to face test for the post of typist, which is quite in proportional to the qualification as well as to the "High Brass Hierarchy late father of the petitioner" and as such inaction regarding adjudication oil the claim of petitioner the respondent No. 1 is illegal and violates the valuable rights of the petitioner without any rhyme and reason.

It is admitted fact that; (1) immediately after the death of the petitioner''s father, his mother moved an application for appointment on compassionate ground, which later on she declined and decided to carry on the family with, whatever resources (2) the petitioner was a minor at the time of death of his father as he has been, educated by his mother and at present he holds degree of B. Tec. In Bio Technology (3) mother able to sustained the family about more than 5 years and has given education to the petitioner, The daughter according to the learned Counsel for the petitioner is major and she has not disclosed her age appended as Annexure No. 10 A to the writ petition is sufficient to show, that the family of the deceased was not in indigent circumstances.

It might be that in the case of Sri U.S. Tripathi a vacancy was available for appointment on the post of Vishesh Karyadhikari, Manwadhikar Ayog at that time and was offered. The appointment on compassionate ground is not a legal right of any member of the family of the deceased. If the family is not old penury and or not in .indigent circumstances, the other needy families of the deceased employee may be considered. As stated earlier, his mother offered for the job and later on decline to accept the job because she wanted her son to get employment on compassionate ground and for this purpose a request was also made to set aside, the post reserved for the appointment of the petitioner. In my opinion there is no such reason in the U.P. Dependent of Government Servant.

Rule, 1974 given a legal right to the family member of the deceased to request a post to be reserved for minor son or daughter till attaining the majority. Normally the application is to be moved within five years after the death of the father, which was done in the instance case by the mother but decline to accept. She could not have moved another application for appointing her son at the end of five years limitation provided under the Rules, If she had not applied for the job then only the second application could have been moved by the petitioner within five years.

For the reason stated above, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

No order as to costs.