Subodh Kumar Mishra vs State of U.P. and Others

Dilip Gupta, J.—The claim of the Petitioner for compassionate appointment on account of death of his father in harness on 5th August, 2008 and for payment of dues of his father has been rejected by the Assistant Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Deoria by the order dated 3rd August, 2010. It is this order which has been impugned in the present Petition.

One of the reason for rejecting the claim of the Petitioner for compassionate appointment is that the Petitioner had earlier filed Writ Petition No. 52883 of 2009 for claiming compassionate appointment on the death of his mother who had also died in harness on 1st January, 2007 which Petition had been dismissed on 12th October, 2009. The ground for refusing dues of his father late Sachchidanand Mishra is that suit for issuance of succession certificate is pending.

Sri Rajeev Mishra, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the judgment of the Court in Writ Petition No. 52883 of 2009 cannot be made a ground for refusing compassionate appointment to the Petitioner on the death of his father since the claim in the said Petition was for compassionate appointment on the death of his mother and that the ground for refusing dues of his father is also arbitrary since there is a registered Will in favour of the Petitioner though Amrita Devi, widow of the brother of the Petitioner, may have filed a succession suit which is pending.

It is not possible to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. The order passed by the Court on 12th October, 2009 in Writ Petition No. 52883 of 2009 is as follows:

Heard Sri Ram Gopal Tripathi learned Counsel for the Petitioner and the learned standing counsel.

Sri Tripathi has vehemently urged that the Petitioner has been unable to establish his practice in the legal profession inspite of fact that he was registered with the Bar Council in the year 1999. The Petitioner had staled his claim for compassionate appointment after the death of his mother. The matter was inquired into and now the Petitioner''s claim has been rejected after recording a finding that the Petitioner is a practicing lawyer and secondly his wife is already employed in services under the Rajasthan Government and drawing a fixed salary of Rs. 8850/ -

Sri Tripathi contends that as a matter of fact the Petitioner is a very unsuccessful lawyer and he has never practiced. That by itself cannot be a ground to entertain the claim of Petitioner, more so when a finding has been additionally recorded that the Petitioner''s wife is already employed.

Compassion is no charity much less a legal charity. This position has been explained by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Umrao Singh, The compassion did not, as a matter of fact exist, so as to warrant invoking of the provisions in the circumstances which have been discussed in the impugned order.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has been unable to dispute the factum relating to the employment of his wife. In such a situation to entertain the writ Petition at the instance of the Petitioner would not be in accordance with the discretion conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The writ Petition is dismissed.

A perusal of this order shows that a finding has been recorded that the wife of the Petitioner is employed under the Rajasthan Government and drawing a fixed salary of Rs. 8850/- per month. It has also been noticed that the Petitioner is a practicing Lawyer. In view of the judgment of the Court in the aforesaid writ Petition, it is not possible to accept the contention of the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the compassionate appointment should be granted to the Petitioner on account of the death of his father in harness though the judgment was in respect of the death of the mother of the Petitioner since same reasons will also apply in the present case.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner, however, submitted that the Petitioner has filed divorce suit against his wife and he has also surrendered his certificate with the Bar Council before the impugned order was passed and, therefore, the said factors cannot now be considered.

The divorce suit is still pending and surrender of the certificate before the Bar Council of India at this stage cannot be made a ground to seek compassionate appointment.

With respect to payment of dues of late Sachchidanand, the authorities have required the Petitioner to submit the succession certificate as Amrita Devi, widow of the brother of the Petitioner has already filed a suit for claiming succession certificate which is still pending. The decision of the authorities, therefore, cannot be said to be arbitrary.

Thus, no relief can be granted to the Petitioner. The writ Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.