Jan - High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

20 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2012ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of theConstitution of India."24. Admittedly, the petitioner'sfather died on 2.8.1989 when the old Rule5 was in operation. At the relevant timeapplication for compassionateappointment was to be submitted within areasonable period of time. Therefore,there was no provision for relaxation ofperiod of limitation by the StateGovernment. On the contrary, a perusal ofthe then existing Rule 5 makes it clearthat it stresses upon to offer employmenton compassionate ground to the deservingpersons of the family without any delay toenable it to survive . Meaning thereby thatthe application ought to have beensubmitted by the eligible dependent of thedeceased employee without any unduedelay and with utmost expediency. Anydelayed application was liable to be dealtwith as if the family has sufficient meansto survive and, therefore, would make himdisentitled for compassionateappointment. The amendment made bynotification in 1993 is prospective andcannot help the petitioner to take anyadvantage of the new Rule since the causeof action in his case arose in 1989 when adifferent provision was in existence.Moreover, the discretion for condoningthe delay is conferred by the provisounder Rule 5 as it stood after theamendment, gives a discretion to the StateGovernment and that too is preceded by acondition for consideration ofappointment on compassionate grounds inspecial cases i.e. where undue hardshiphas caused to the family of the deceasedwhich is living in indigent circumstancesand it is expedient and where it is in thedeserving case it would be in the interestof justice that the provision pertaining tolimitation of five years period needs to berelaxed and in other cases itt does not giveany right to a person to claim relaxationthereafter. In the facts and circumstancesof the case, in our considered view, Rule5 as brought on the statute book bynotification dated 13.10.1993 cannot helpthe petitioner for maintaining hisapplication for compassionateappointment after more than 12 years.25. Paragraphs 16 and 19 aforesaiddo not give an impression that the familyof the deceased was in immediate need offinancial assistance as the petitioner hasaverred therein that he would be hand tomouth after his attaining 25 years of age.The argument that the petitioner is livingseparately with his uncle is also belied byparagraph 19 of the writ petition and evenif he is living along with his uncle, itcannot be said that the family is living inindigent circumstances for the reasonsgiven herein above in this judgment.26. Admittedly, the mother of theappellant had requested the authorities toprovide compassionate appointment to thebrother of the deceased which wasdeclined by the authorities and in thatcircumstances, she prayed for reservationof a post for one of her sons oncompassionate ground. It is also anadmitted fact that the family claims to beliving separately from their uncle.Moreover, it has survived more than 22years after the death of the deceased. Thechildren have got education as the courthas been informed that the appellant hasgraduated in 2004. What is his presentstatus is not known to the counsel for theappellant i.e. as to whether he is servingany where or not and how is he maintainhis family too.