Bare Existence Of Agricultural Holdings In The Name Of Claimants Cannot Be Reason To Reject Compassionate Appointment Claim: Allahabad HC
|The Allahabad High Court remanded a claim for compassionate appointment for reconsideration after holding that the bare existence of an agricultural holding with the family of a deceased employee cannot be inferred to yield “reckonable income.”
The Court set aside the rejection of a compassionate appointment claim filed by the son of a deceased government employee. The son, who applied in 2020 after turning 18, claimed his family was on the verge of starvation following his father’s death in 2011. The State Authority’s rejection was based on the family's survival for ten years after the death of the employee and their possession of some agricultural land.
A Single Bench of Justice J.J. Munir observed, “The District Cane Officer, Sambhal has not made any endeavour to ascertain what is the yield from these small holdings to the petitioner or his mother, that is to say, the deceased's dependent family. By the bare existence of an agricultural holding with the petitioner and his mother of the sizes noticed in two different villages, there cannot be a plausible inference drawn that it yields reckonable income to the petitioner or the family, whom the deceased has left behind. To do that, the District Cane Officer has to undertake further inquiries and make a report on the annual yield from these holdings to the petitioner and his mother.”
Advocate Rajesh Kumar Yadav represented the petitioner, while ACSC Girijesh Kumar Tripathi appeared for the respondent.
Regarding the delay in filing the claim, the Court stated, “So far as the delay in making the application for compassionate appointment is concerned, it is obvious that the petitioner was a 9 years old boy, when his father passed away. He cannot be blamed for making the application 9 years after his demise. He apparently made the necessary application as soon as he attained majority.”
The Bench observed that the authorities had failed to adequately consider relevant factors such as the deceased's income at the time of his death, the family's current income from various sources, the nature of the agricultural holdings, and the widow's employment status and earnings.
Another reason for rejecting the claim was that the deceased's widow (petitioner’s mother) was employed as an Anganwadi Karyakatri. The Court clarified that simply because the mother was working on a contractual basis did not mean that the family was not financially struggling.
“An Anganwadi Karyakatri is not a government employment. The petitioner's mother receives an honourarium in the sum of Rs.3250/- - 6500/- per month. It must be remarked that a contractual employment that offers the sum of money that the petitioner alleges is hardly any reckonable financial resource to guarantee a subsistence level of income for the family,” the Court remarked.
The Court also found that the agricultural holdings found with the petitioner and his mother were not “lavish in size or big enough to support a steady income.” It was also pointed out that the authorities did not “endeavour to ascertain what is the yield from these small holdings.”
Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned order passed by the State Authority and remitted the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment to the State Authority for consideration.
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the petition.
Cause Title: Aman Pathak v. State of U.P. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:97182)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocate Rajesh Kumar Yadav
Respondent: ACSC Girijesh Kumar Tripathi; Advocate Ravindra Singh and Jhanvi Singh