For Petitioner : Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, Advocate
For Respondent No. 1/State : Mr. Rajkumar Gupta,
Additional Advocate General
For Respondents No. 2 & 3 : None, though served
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
30/03/2026
1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):-
10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant
any other relief as it may deems fit and appropriate."
2. The facts, in brief, are that father of the petitioner who was working on
the post of Assistant Extension Officer died in harness on 23.06.2001.
On the date of death, the petitioner was minor, aged about 03 years
and after attaining majority, he moved an application for grant of
compassionate appointment on 20.04.2015 and same was rejected by
the respondent authorities vide order dated 04.12.2017. The petitioner
challenged said order by filing WPS No. 2799/2017, wherein direction
was issued to respondent No. 2 to consider and decide it in
accordance with law. Respondent No. 2 vide order dated 04.12.2017
rejected the representation of the petitioner on the ground that the
application was moved after expiry of prescribed limitation period.
3. Mr. C. Jayant K. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
would submit that on the date of death of the government servant, the
petitioner was minor and therefore, he moved application after attaining
majority. He would contend that in similar facts and circumstances, this
Court directed the respondent authorities to consider the claim of
compassionate appointment. He would pray for a similar order.
4. On the other hand, Mr. Rajkumar Gupta, learned Additional Advocate
General appearing for the State/respondent No. 1 would oppose. He
would submit that the application for grant compassionate appointment
can be considered based on existing policy. He would submit that on
the date of death of government servant, the petitioner was minor aged
about 03 years and he approached the authority after 14 years and
therefore, his application was rightly rejected. He has placed reliance
of the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters
of State of Maharastra and another Vs. Ms. Madhuri Maruti
Vidhate, AIR OnLine 2022 SC 471 and Punjab State Power
Corporation Limited and others Vs. Nirval Singh, (2019) 6 SCC 774
wherein it is held that the object of compassionate appointment is a
way to provide immediate financial assistance to families who have
experienced sudden hardship and in the present case, the petitioner
has already survived for more than 20 years. He would contend that
the wife of the government servant failed to approach the respondent
authorities claiming compassionate appointment and she waited till the
petitioner attains age of majority. He would further contend that the
representation of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated
04.12.2017 and the petitioner has preferred this petition on 10.06.2021
after four years without explaining delay. He would submit that the
petition deserves to be dismissed.
5. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the
documents annexed with the instant petition.
6. The father of the petitioner died in harness in the year 2001, whereas,
the petitioner approached the respondent authorities in the year 2017.
Representation of the petitioner was rejected vide order dated
04.12.2017, whereas writ petition has been preferred on 10.06.2021. In
para- 7 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that though the
petitioner approached the respondent authorities, but no action was
taken. It appears that the petitioner failed to explain the delay part
properly. Further the petitioner has already survived for more than 20
years and the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the similar
issue in the matter of Ms. Madhuri Maruti Vidhate (supra), held at
paragraph Nos. 7 & 8 as under :
"7.Thus, as per the law laid down by this Court in
the aforesaid decisions, compassionate
appointment is an exception to the general rule of
appointment in the public services and is in
favour of the dependents of a deceased dying in
harness and leaving his family in penury and
without any means of livelihood, and in such
cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration
taking into consideration the fact that unless
some source of livelihood is provided, the family
would not be able to make both ends meet, a
provision is made in the rules to provide gainful
employment to one of the dependents of the
deceased who may be eligible for such
employment. The whole object of granting
compassionate employment is, thus, to enable
the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The
object is not to give such family a post much less
a post held by the deceased.
7.1. Applying the law laid down by this Court
in the aforesaid decisions to the facts of the
case on hand, to appoint the respondent
now on compassionate ground shall be
contrary to the object and purpose of
appointment on compassionate ground. The
respondent cannot be said to be dependent
on the deceased employee, i.e., her mother.
Even otherwise, she shall not be entitled to
appointment on compassionate ground after
a number of years from the death of the
deceased employee.
8. Under the circumstances and in the facts and
circumstances of the case narrated hereinabove,
the Tribunal as well as the High Court have
committed serious error in directing the
appellants to appoint the respondent on
compassionate ground. The judgment and order
passed by the Tribunal confirmed by the High
Court directing the appellants to consider the
case of the respondent for appointment on
compassionate ground after a number of years is
unsustainable."
In the matter of Nirval Singh (supra), it has been held at
paragraph Nos. 7 to 9 as under :
"7. In our view there is more than one
impediment in the way of the respondent.
8. The first is the delay in approaching the Courts
for redressal after a period of 7 years even if he
is making representations. The very objective of
providing immediate amelioration to the family is
extinguished. The second is that the earlier policy
having been abolished and the new policy having
coming into force, the application has been
considered under the new policy and the options
available were offered to the respondent who
failed to avail of the same.
9. Our attention has been drawn to the relevant
clause of the new policy which reads as under:
"The above policy instructions shall be
applicable from the date of issue of
instructions. The cases, where
compassionate employment has not been
given due to discontinuance of the earlier
policy since 4/2002, shall also be
considered and requisite relief, in lieu
compassionate employment, shall be
granted as per above policy instructions."
7. Taking into consideration the above discussed facts and the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of Ms. Madhuri
Maruti Vidhate (supra) and Nirval Singh (supra), I do not find any
good ground to interfere into the matter, thus, respondent No.2 rightly
rejected the application moved by the petitioner. Accordingly, this
petition is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
vatti
