The petitioner cannot claim an appointment on compassionate grounds as a matter of right: Allahabad High Court
The family of the petitioners has survived for more than 15 years without such an appointment. The mother of the petitioner was entitled to claim the compassionate appointment which she did not pursue, and surrendered her claim after nine years of submission of her application with a request for the appointment of her son in her place. If such a practice is permitted, that would frustrate the object of the Scheme of compassionate appointment which is to provide immediate succor to the bereaved family and to help out the family from the rigors of financial hardship being faced by the family due to the death of sole bread earner of the family and also against the settled norms prescribed for grant of compassionate appointment. Such an observation was made by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court before Hon’ble Justice Saral Srivastava in the matter of Sachin Yadav vs State Of U.P. &amp; ors [WRIT – A No. – 5064 of 2021] 
The facts of the matter were that the deceased was the Assistant Teacher in Primary School Jagra, Block Nidhauli Kala, District Etah, who unfortunately died on 16.3.2006. After his death on 03.01.2011, the petitioner’s mother applied for a compassionate appointment. The application was processed but as such application was not submitted in the prescribed format, the petitioner’s mother was requested to submit it in the prescribed format. Upon such application, the application was forwarded to the state government as the prescribed limitation period was over, but no decision was taken on such application. On 04.03.2021 she withdrew her application and requested the appointment of her son Sachin Yadav in her place.

The Hon’ble High Court observed that the object of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate relief to the bereaved family so that the bereaved family may get over the financial hardship suffered by them on account of the untimely death of the sole bread earner of the family. Additionally, the Hon’ble High Court stated that “It is settled in law that the compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule and no aspirant has a right to the compassionate appointment.”

Furthermore, the Hon’ble High Court observed that the petitioner cannot claim an appointment on compassionate grounds as a matter of right, and it can be given to the petitioner if he fulfills the norms prescribed for the grant of compassionate appointment.

Finally, the Hon’ble High Court dismissed the appeal.
Click Here To Read The Judgment.
Judgment Reviewed by: Rohan Kumar Thakur
 The facts of the matter were that the deceased was the Assistant Teacher in Primary School Jagra, Block Nidhauli Kala, District Etah, who unfortunately died on 16.3.2006. After his death on 03.01.2011, the petitioner’s mother applied for a compassionate appointment. The application was processed but as such application was not submitted in the prescribed format, the petitioner’s mother was requested to submit it in the prescribed format. Upon such application, the application was forwarded to the state government as the prescribed limitation period was over, but no decision was taken on such application. On 04.03.2021 she withdrew her application and requested the appointment of her son Sachin Yadav in her place. 
The Hon’ble High Court observed that the object of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate relief to the bereaved family so that the bereaved family may get over the financial hardship suffered by them on account of the untimely death of the sole bread earner of the family. Additionally, the Hon’ble High Court stated that “It is settled in law that the compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule and no aspirant has a right to the compassionate appointment.”

Furthermore, the Hon’ble High Court observed that the petitioner cannot claim an appointment on compassionate grounds as a matter of right, and it can be given to the petitioner if he fulfills the norms prescribed for the grant of compassionate appointment.

Finally, the Hon’ble High Court dismissed the appeal.
Click Here To Read The Judgment.
Judgment Reviewed by: Rohan Kumar Thakur
 The Hon’ble High Court observed that the object of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate relief to the bereaved family so that the bereaved family may get over the financial hardship suffered by them on account of the untimely death of the sole bread earner of the family. Additionally, the Hon’ble High Court stated that “It is settled in law that the compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule and no aspirant has a right to the compassionate appointment.” 
Furthermore, the Hon’ble High Court observed that the petitioner cannot claim an appointment on compassionate grounds as a matter of right, and it can be given to the petitioner if he fulfills the norms prescribed for the grant of compassionate appointment.

Finally, the Hon’ble High Court dismissed the appeal.
Click Here To Read The Judgment.
Judgment Reviewed by: Rohan Kumar Thakur
 Furthermore, the Hon’ble High Court observed that the petitioner cannot claim an appointment on compassionate grounds as a matter of right, and it can be given to the petitioner if he fulfills the norms prescribed for the grant of compassionate appointment. 
Finally, the Hon’ble High Court dismissed the appeal.
 RESERVED ON 26.07.2021 DELIVERED ON: 21.10.2021 Case : WRIT A No. 50621 Petitioner : Sachin Yadav Respondent : State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner : Kailash Singh Kushwaha Sanjay Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent : C.S.C. Sanjay Kumar Srivastava Hon ble Saral Srivastava J Heard Sri Kailash Singh Kushwaha learned counsel for the petitioner learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State respondent no.1 and Sri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava learned counsel appearing for respondents no.2 3 The petitioner through this writ petition has prayed for the following i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent no.3 to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner without any further delay ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondent no.2 either to take appropriate and necessary decision on the reference made by respondent no.3 by letter dated 27.12.2011 followed by reminder dated 30.04.2013 and 04.03.2021 for providing compassionate appointment or to refer the matter to the State Government f through proper channel forthwith iii) Issue any other writ order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case iv) Award the costs of the petition in favour of the petitioner.“ The case of the petitioner is that the father of the petitioner Late Satya Pal Singh was an Assistant Teacher in Primary School Jagra Block Nidhauli Kala District Etah who unfortunately died on 16.3.2006. After his death the mother of the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 3.1.2011. The application of the mother of the petitioner was processed she was asked to submit an application in the prescribed format. Thereafter respondent no.4 forwarded the application of the mother of the petitioner along with its recommendation for compassionate appointment to respondent no.3 on 27.12.2011. Since the mother of the petitioner applied after five years from the date of death of his father therefore the respondent no.3 referred the application of the mother of the petitioner vide letter dated 27.12.2011 to respondent no.2 for grant of relaxation in time for the delay in submitting the application It appears that no decision was taken on the application of the mother of the petitioner for the compassionate appointment It further transpires from the record that when no decision was taken on the application of the mother of the petitioner she withdrew her application and requested the appointment of her son Sachin Yadav in her place. The District Basic Education Officer Etah vide letter dated 4.3.2021 forwarded the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment to the Secretary U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad Prayagraj for grant of relaxation in time as the petitioner has submitted the application after five years from the date of death of his father. In the aforesaid backdrop the petitioner has prayed for the relief extracted above Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Para 8 of the Government Order dated 4.9.2000 provides for seeking necessary approval of the State Government where the application for the compassionate appointment has been submitted after five years from the date of death of the deceased employee and the State Government is under obligation to consider the application of the petitioner for grant of relaxation for the delay in submitting the said application. Accordingly he submits that the action of the respondents in not considering the application of the petitioner is illegal He further contends that whatever delay has occurred the same has occurred on account of inaction on the part of the respondents in not considering the application of compassionate appointment of his mother in time therefore the petitioner is entitled to relaxation in limitation for grant of appointment on compassionate ground In support of the contention he has placed reliance upon two judgments of this Court in the cases of Madhav Prasad Shakya Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2018(11) ADJ 198 and Vishal Saini Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in 2021ADJ 74Rules 1984the minimum age for recruitment on Class III Posts is 18 years. The petitioner did not submit any application as soon as he became eligible for consideration for appointment on the compassionate ground rather he applied after six years after he became eligible for appointment on compassionate ground The father of the petitioner had died in the year 2006 and the mother of the petitioner withdrew her application after 13 years and requested for grant of compassionate appointment to her son. At this stage it is worth noticing that the object of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate relief to the bereaved family so that the bereaved family may get over the financial hardship suffered by them on account of the untimely death of the sole bread earner of the family. It is settled in law that the compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule and no aspirant has a right to the compassionate appointment Thus the petitioner cannot claim an appointment on compassionate grounds as a matter of right and it can be given to the petitioner if he fulfills the norms prescribed for the grant of compassionate appointment. In the case in hand the mother of the petitioner applied for the compassionate appointment in the proper format in December 2011. Since the application was submitted beyond the period of limitation i.e. five years prescribed for submitting the application for compassionate appointment therefore the matter was referred to the State Government but the State Government did not take any decision on the application of the mother of the petitioner. His mother also did not pursue her claim and after about 13 years from the date of death of petitioner s father she withdrew her application and requested for the appointment of her son in her place on compassionate ground. The petitioner thereafter submitted an application on 4.11.2019 The family of the petitioner survived for more than 15 years. The mother of the petitioner was entitled to claim the compassionate appointment which she did not pursue and surrendered her claim after nine years of submission of her application with a request for the appointment of her son in her place. Under the Scheme for compassionate appointment under U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules 1974 the Rule does not envisage any such contingency where the widow of the deceased employee submitted an application for consideration of appointment on compassionate ground and thereafter she sat idle and did not take any legal recourse to assert her claim for appointment on compassionate ground rather she waited for her son to become eligible for compassionate appointment thereafter she withdrew her application and requested for the appointment of her son in her place. If such a practice is permitted that would frustrate the object of the Scheme of compassionate appointment which is to provide immediate succor to the bereaved family and to help out the family from the rigors of financial hardship being faced by the family due to the death of sole bread earner of the family and also against the settled norms prescribed for grant of compassionate appointment. Since the family has survived for about 15 years therefore this Court believes that the relief claimed by the petitioner cannot be granted This view is supported by the judgment of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 8921 Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman and Managing Director & Ors. Vs. Smt. Parden Oreon decided on 9th April 2021 wherein the Apex Court refused to grant the compassionate appointment to the son of the respondent who submitted the application for the compassionate appointment more than ten years after the respondent s husband has gone missing. Paragraph 9 of the judgment is reproduced “9. We are in agreement with the High Court that the reasons given by the employer for denying compassionate appointment to the Respondent’s son are not justified. There is no bar in the National Coal Wage Agreement for appointment of the son of an employee who has suffered civil death. In addition merely because the respondent is working her son cannot be denied compassionate appointment as per the relevant clauses of the National Coal Wage Agreement. However the Respondent’s husband is missing since 2002. Two sons of the Respondent who are the dependents of her husband as per the records are also shown as dependents of the Respondent. It cannot be said that there there was any financial crisis created immediately after Respondent’s husband went missing in view of the employment of the Respondent. Though the reasons given by the employer to deny the relief sought by the Respondent are not sustainable we are convinced that the Respondent’s son cannot be given compassionate appointment at this point of time. The application for compassionate appointment of the son was filed by the Respondent in the year 2013 which is more than 10 years after the Respondent’s husband had gone missing. As the object of compassionate appointment is for providing immediate succour to the family of a deceased employee the Respondent’s son is not entitled for compassionate appointment after the passage of a long period of time since his father has gone missing.” It is true that the Rule 1974 provides that if the application for compassionate appointment is submitted after five years the competent authority is obliged to forward it to the State Government to consider the claim of compassionate appointment who is under obligation to consider the same but the application has to be submitted within a reasonable time after the expiry of the period prescribed for submitting such application specifying the reasons for the delay in submitting the application. If the state government in a given case is satisfied that the delay in filing the application is bonafide it may consider the application and accord consideration for compassionate appointment subject to fulfillment of other eligibility criteria prescribed for compassionate appointment. The said provision does not confer an indefeasible right upon the aspirant of the compassionate appointment for consideration of his application even though it has been submitted with inordinate delay without any proper and bonafide explanation for the delay in submitting the said application In the instant case no such condition exists inasmuch as the petitioner has not explained the reason for the delay in submitting the application rather the facts stated above reveals that the mother of the petitioner was dormant in pursuing her claim. Thus the argument of the petitioner s counsel that once the application for compassionate appointment is submitted after the period prescribed for submitting the application the competent authority is bound to forward the same to the state government who is under obligation to consider the same is misconceived and not sustainable. In the opinion of the Court Judgments relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner are not applicable in the present case. In the case of Madhav Prasad Shakya the petitioner submitted a representation immediately after attaining the age of majority which application was rejected by the State Government on the ground that the application has been filed after the expiry of five years. In that circumstances the Court held that the application has wrongly been rejected. The factual situation in the case of Madhav Prasad Shakyain which this Court allowed the writ petition is different from the facts of the present case hence the law enunciated in the said judgment is not attracted in the present case In the case of Vishal Sainiit has been held that at the time of death of petitioner s father he was minor. The mother of the petitioner was given the compassionate appointment who also died on 31.1.2012 during the service period. At the time of death of his mother the petitioner was minor and as soon as he became major he submitted an application for appointment on compassionate ground on 11.10.2019 which was rejected by the authority concerned on the ground of limitation. In such a factual backdrop the Court held that the claim of the petitioner has wrongly been rejected on the ground of limitation. The facts of the present case are not akin to the facts of the case of Vishal Sainitherefore the judgement of Vishal Sainidoes not help the cause of the petitioner Thus for the reasons given above the writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. However there shall be no order as to costs Order Date : 21.10.2021