[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Uttarakhand High Court
WPSS/2653/2017 on 27 March, 2026
Author: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
Bench: Manoj Kumar Tiwari
2026:UHC:2205
Office Notes,
reports, orders
or proceedings
SL.
Date or directions COURT'S OR JUDGE'S ORDERS
No.
and Registrar's
order with
Signatures
WPSS 2653/2017
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.
Mr. Sandeep Tiwari, Advocate, for
the petitioner.
Ms. Mamta Bisht, Deputy AG, with
Mr. R.C. Joshi, Brief Holder, for the State.
(2) Petitioner's father was serving as
Peon in State Public Works Department at
Srinagar Garhwal. According to petitioner,
his father went missing from 1.10.1996.
Ultimately, his civil death was declared by
learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Karnprayag,
Chamoli, vide judgment dated 29.7.2006.
Petitioner was about 14 years of age in
2006, therefore his mother requested the
competent authority in State Public Works
Department to keep petitioner's claim for
compassionate appointment alive till he
attains majority. After attaining majority,
petitioner applied for compassionate
appointment on 5.9.2011. Learned Counsel
for the petitioner submits that no decision
has been taken on petitioner's application
for compassionate appointment.
(3) In this writ petition, petitioner has
challenged the noting made by Personnel
Department on the file of the petitioner,
which is at page 65 of the writ petition. As
per the noting, petitioner should have
applied for compassionate appointment
within five years from 2.10.2003.
2.10.2003 refers to the date when seven
years are completed after disappearance of
petitioner's father. Additional Secretary,
Department of Appointment & Personnel
states that petitioner could have applied
within five years from 2.10.2003 and since
2026:UHC:2205
petitioner has applied after expiry of five
years from 2.10.2003, therefore, he has
lost right of compassionate appointment on
account of delay.
(4) This Court finds substance in the
submission made by learned Counsel for
the petitioner that the date of judgment,
whereby civil death of petitioner's father
was declared, has to be treated as the date
of death. Since the judgment was rendered
by learned Civil Judge on 29.7.2006,
therefore, five years period has to be
reckoned by taking 29.7.2006 as the
starting date. Thus viewed, five years
period expired on 28.7.2011. Petitioner
made application for compassionate
appointment on 5.9.2011, with the delay of
less than two months. Thus the view
expressed by Additional Secretary,
Department of Appointment & Personnel is
erroneous, thus unsustainable.
(5) Having regard to the peculiar facts
of the case, the State Government could
have granted exemption from limitation of
five years to the petitioner, however State
Government appears to have taken a hyper
technical view. In such view of the matter,
the view taken by the Additional Secretary,
Department of Appointment & Personnel
cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and
the same is hereby quashed.
(6) Learned Counsel for the petitioner
submits that even though petitioner had
submitted affidavit in terms of proviso to
Rule 2(b) of the Dying in Harness Rules,
1974, however petitioner shall submit fresh
affidavit disclosing the current financial
status of the family.
(7) For the reasons indicated above
and subject to petitioner's furnishing
2026:UHC:2205
affidavit in terms of Rule 2(b) of the Dying
in Harness Rules along with certified copy
of this order within ten days from today to
the competent authority, writ petition is
disposed of with a direction to the State
Government to re-examine petitioner's
claim for compassionate appointment in the
light of discussion made above and pass
appropriate order, within ten weeks
thereafter.
(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)
27.3.2026
Pr
PRABODH KUMAR
DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND,
2.5.4.20=3a082a00a95aff911a9559743af8f21c50602ff6eae4e61af3aeab198d462503,
postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND,
serialNumber=0DC111E8D8CA66E16B940EFDF806ACCC1AB588052DF6FCA58C67F3C91957BE53,
cn=PRABODH KUMAR
Date: 2026.03.27 17:56:28 +05'30'
2026:UHC:2205
