SANTOSH KUMAR DUBEY versus STATE OF U.P. & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 9 S.C.R. 572 · Decided: 18-05-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2009] 9 S.C.R. 572 
SANTOSH KUMAR DUBEY 
v. 
STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1955 of 2003) 
MAY 18, 2009 
[DR MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND DR. B.S. 
CHAUHAN, JJ.] 
Service Law - Compassionate appointment - Claim for 
C - By son of the Government employee - Whereabouts of the 
employee not known for past seven years - Service -benefits 
given to his wife on the basis of his deemed death - Held; 
Claim for the appointment was belated as per rules - On facts, 
it cannot be said that the family was not able to face or. 
D overcome the sudden economic crisis - Not entitled for such 
appointment - Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of 
Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 197 4 -
Evidence Act, 1872 -'s. 108. 
E 
Appellant filed a writ petition seeking his 
compassionate appointment on the ground that his 
father's whereabouts were not known for the past seven 
years. He relied on the fact that on the basis of the 
deemed death of his father, in a writ petition filed by his 
mother, the High Court directed to grant her service 
F benefits of his father. High Court dismissed the petition 
seeking compassionate appointment. Special appeal 
. thereagainst was dismissed by Division Bench of High 
Court Hence the present appeal. 
G 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of 
Government Servants Dying in harness Rules, 197 4 
would make it crystal clear that there is a time limit 
H 
572 
SANTOSH KUMAR DUBEY v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 573 
. 
-~ 
prescribed according to which a deserving candidate has 
A 
to make an application for appointment within five years 
from the date of death of the government servant. 
Admittedly, the father of the appellant was untraceable 
from 1981. Without entering into and deciding the issue 
as to whether employment on compassionate ground 
B 
~ 
could be asked for in a case of deemed death under 
Section 108 of the Evidence Act, even if it is assumed for 
the sake of argument that it can be so demanded and 
asked for, such a right should and could have been 
exercised in the year 1988 and computing the period of c 
five years therefrom the period of limitation for making an 
application for employment in the case of the appellant 
expired in the year, 1993. [Paras 8] [577-8-E] 
-
2. The very concept of giving a compassionate 
-ii-
appointment is to tide over the financial difficulties that D 
is faced by the family of the deceased due to the death 
of the earning member of the family. There is immediate 
loss of earning for which the family suffers financial 
hardship. The benefit is given so that the family can tide 
over such financial constraints. The request for 
E 
~ 
appointment on compassionate grounds should be 
i 
reasonable and proximate to the time of the death of the 
bread earner of the family, inasmuch as the very purpose 
of giving such benefit is to make financial help available 
to the family to overcome sudden economic crisis 
F 
occurring in the family of the deceased who has died in 
harness. But this, however, cannot be another source of 
recruitment. This also cannot be treated as a bonanza 
~ 
and also as a right to get an appointment in Government 
service. In the present case, the father of the appellant G 
became untraceable in the year 1981 and for about 18 
years, the family could survive and successfully faced 
and overcame the financial difficulties that they faced on 
missing of the earning member. That being the position, 
H 
. 
574 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009) 9 S.C.R. 
j 
' 
A this is not a fit case for exercise of jurisdiction of this · 
court. This is also not a case where any direction could 
be issued for giving the appellant ''a compassionate 
appointment as the prevalent rules governing the subject 
do not .permit for issuing any such directions. [Paras 8 
B and 9] (573-E-H; 574-A-C] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
f 
1955 of 2003. 
·From the Judgment and Order dated 28.8.2002 passed 
c by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench), 
Lucknow in Special Appeal No. 246 (S/B)/2002. 
Pradeep Misra for the Appellant. 
S.S. Upadhyay, T.N. Singh Manoj Dwivedi, Vibha Dwivedi 
"' 
D and Gunnam Venkateswara Rao for the Respondent. 
"ii- I 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. 1. This appeal is 
E directed against the judgment passed by the Division Bench 
of the Allahabad High Court whereby the Special Appeal filed 
by the appellant was dismissed. T

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.