The family of the petitioners has survived for more than 15 years without such an appointment. The mother of the petitioner was entitled to claim the compassionate appointment which she did not pursue, and surrendered her claim after nine years of submission of her application with a request for the appointment of her son in her place. If such a practice is permitted, that would frustrate the object of the Scheme of compassionate appointment which is to provide immediate succor to the bereaved family and to help out the family from the rigors of financial hardship being faced by the family due to the death of sole bread earner of the family and also against the settled norms prescribed for grant of compassionate appointment. Such an observation was made by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court before Hon’ble Justice Saral Srivastava in the matter of Sachin Yadav vs State Of U.P. & ors [WRIT – A No. – 5064 of 2021]
The facts of the matter were that the deceased was the Assistant Teacher in Primary School Jagra, Block Nidhauli Kala, District Etah, who unfortunately died on 16.3.2006. After his death on 03.01.2011, the petitioner’s mother applied for a compassionate appointment. The application was processed but as such application was not submitted in the prescribed format, the petitioner’s mother was requested to submit it in the prescribed format. Upon such application, the application was forwarded to the state government as the prescribed limitation period was over, but no decision was taken on such application. On 04.03.2021 she withdrew her application and requested the appointment of her son Sachin Yadav in her place.
The Hon’ble High Court observed that the object of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate relief to the bereaved family so that the bereaved family may get over the financial hardship suffered by them on account of the untimely death of the sole bread earner of the family. Additionally, the Hon’ble High Court stated that “It is settled in law that the compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule and no aspirant has a right to the compassionate appointment.”
Furthermore, the Hon’ble High Court observed that the petitioner cannot claim an appointment on compassionate grounds as a matter of right, and it can be given to the petitioner if he fulfills the norms prescribed for the grant of compassionate appointment.
Finally, the Hon’ble High Court dismissed the appeal.
Judgment Reviewed by: Rohan Kumar Thakur