Uttarakhand High Court
Union Of India And Others --Appellants vs Chandan Singh on 10 June, 2025
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2025:UHC:4764-DB
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
HON'BLE JUSTICE SRI MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI AND
HON'BLE JUSTICE SRI SUBHASH UPADHYAY
Special Appeal No. 465 of 2018
Union of India and others --Appellants
Versus
Chandan Singh --Respondent
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Presence:-
Mr. Pankaj Chaturvedi, Advocate for the appellants
Mr. Naresh Pant, Advocate for the respondent through video conferencing
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The Court made the following:
JUDGMENT:
(per Hon'ble Justice Sri Manoj Kumar Tiwari)
1. There is a delay of 84 days in filing the Appeal. For the
reasons indicated, delay is condoned. Accordingly, Delay
Condonation Application (CLMA No. 8476 of 2018) stands
disposed of.
2. This intra-Court Appeal is directed against judgment
and order dated 17.02.2018, rendered by learned Single
Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 144 of 2010. The impugned
judgment is reproduced below:-
"The petitioner's father was engaged as valve-man. He died-in-
harness on 15.03.1998. The petitioner applied for compassionate
appointment on 20.04.1998. The petitioner was offered appointment
letter on 30.05.2002. However, surprisingly, the same was withdrawn
on 17.08.2002. The petitioner filed Writ Petition (S/S) No. 133 of 2003
before this Court which was decided on 25.07.2008 whereby the
respondent were directed to consider the case for the petitioner afresh.
The case of the petitioner was reconsidered and rejected on
22.07.2009 vide annexure No.1, on the ground that the petitioner did
not fall within 5% quota meant for compassionate appointment.
The fact of the matter is that the petitioner has already been
offered appointment vide letter dated 30.05.2002. It pre-supposes that
his candidature was considered against 5% vacancies, as per the
norms laid down by the respondent-Union of India. The Union of India
cannot be permitted to change its stand from time to time. It is
nowhere mentioned in the pleadings that the vacancy was not available
within a period of one year when the petitioner applied on 15.03.1998
till 14.03.1999.
The action of the respondents rejecting the case of the petitioner
is arbitrary. Moreover, the petitioner was not issued any show cause
notice before withdrawing the appointment letter issued to him on
30.05.2002 vide letter 17.08.2002.
There is a violation of principle of 2018:UHC:1045 appointment
on compassionate basis is to enable the family of deceased facing the
economic crises due to sudden demise of sole bread earner.
2025:UHC:4764-DB
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. Impugned annexure
No.1 dated 22.07.2009 is quashed and set aside. The appointment
letter dated 30.05.2002 shall stand revived."
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that
appointment on compassionate ground offered to the writ
petitioner (respondent herein), was withdrawn on the ground
of non-availability of sufficient vacancy within 5 percent
quota available for appointment on compassionate ground.
Thus he submits that learned Single Judge was not justified
in allowing the writ petition without considering applicable
policy.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent, per contra, submits
that respondent's father was serving as a valve man in
Military Engineering Service who died on 15.03.1998, leaving
behind the writ petitioner, his mother and two younger
siblings. Since there was no source of income available to
the family, therefore writ petitioner applied for
compassionate appointment, his request was processed as
per applicable policy and competent authority offered
appointment on compassionate ground to respondent on
30.05.2002, which could not have been withdrawn
unilaterally by the authorities without assigning any reason
or providing any opportunity of hearing to the respondent.
Thus he submits that learned Single Judge was justifying in
allowing his writ petition.
5. We have perused the judgment rendered by learned
Single Judge. Learned Single Judge has noted that there was
nothing on record to show that vacancy was not available
with a period of one year from the date when writ petitioner
applied for compassionate appointment. Learned Single
Judge has given valid reasons for allowing the writ petition
and has held that principles of natural justice were violated
2025:UHC:4764-DB
while withdrawing the offer of appointment.
6. We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the
impugned judgment which may warrant interference in this
intra-Court appeal.
7. In such view of the matter, the Special Appeal fails and
is dismissed.
_______________________________
MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.
____________________________
SUBHASH UPADHYAY, J.
Dt: 10th June, 2025
Mahinder
