Deepak Rai vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

M. Katju and Yatindra Singh, JJ.—Heard counsel for the petitioner, Sri Vivek Singh appeared for the respondents.

The petitioner is challenging the impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad, dated 31.10.2002, Annexure-10 to the petition. The petitioner claims appointment under dying-in-harness rules. When he was not granted appointment, he filed an original application, which was rejected by the aforesaid impugned order. The father of the petitioner died in the year 1991, i.e., about 11 years ago. It is settled law that compassionate appointment under dying-in-harness rules should not be given after long years of the death of the father vide Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and Others, , S. Mohan Vs. Government of T.N. and Another, , Harvansh Sahai Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. and Others, U.P.S.R.T.C. v. A.K. Misra 1995 (1) UPLBEC 21, Haryana State Electricity Board v. Hakim Singh 1997 (3) UPLBEC 2947 (SC), Haryana State Electricity Board Vs. Naresh Tanwar and Another, etc. The very purpose of compassionate appointment on the death of an employee is that there may be immediate financial crisis in the family, and some financial help is necessary. Since the petitioner''s father died long ago, that financial crisis is over, and now there is no question of granting appointment to the petitioner under the dying-in-harness rules in view of the above decisions.

We see no infirmity in the impugned order of the Tribunal and writ petition is dismissed.