IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL v. Ajay Singh

not included in the definition of dependents. Aggrieved by the rejection order, petitioner/respondent preferred the instant writ petition, praying for the following reliefs:- “1. A writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned clause 2 (cha) of the impugned GO dated 08.04.2008 (Annexure-5) by declaring it as illegal/ultra virus to the extent it does not includes “Dependent Brother”.

2. A writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari to quash the impugned rejection order dated 30.07.2008 (Annexure-4).”

3. After exchange of pleadings, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and held that the Government Order dated 08.04.2008 would apply prospectively and the case of the petitioner should have been considered as per Government Order dated 08.10.2004, where unmarried brother was included in the definition of dependent. The writ petition was allowed. The impugned order dated 08.04.2008 was quashed and respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioner/respondent for appointment on compassionate basis.

4. The ground taken in the Special Appeal by the appellant is that the Government Order dated 08.04.2008 was in respect of those employees, in the Basic Shiksha Parishad, who have died in harness between the period from 21.04.2001 to 21.04.2006, as the school run by the Basic Shiksha Parishad in the State of Uttarakhand were provincialized w.e.f. 22.04.2006. On this basis, they have contended that learned Single Judge have erred in holding that the Government Order

08.04.2008 would prospectively.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that since the 1974 Rules would apply to Government Servants and since the sister of the petitioner was serving in the school run by the Basic Shiksha Parishad, therefore, the 1974 Rules are not applicable in the present case. Learned counsel further submits since, compassionate appointment is not a vested right and the same is relative to the financial condition and hardship faced by the dependents of the deceased government employee as a consequence of his death, a claim for compassionate appointment cannot be granted after lapse of a considerable period of time. It is further argued that the purpose of providing appointment on compassionate grounds is to mitigate the hardship caused due to the death of the bread earner in the family. It is also argued that the object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis due to the death of the bread-earner which has left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood.

6. Learned counsel has further submitted that mere death of employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. On this basis, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment after a lapse of more than 13 years of death of sister of the petitioner.

7. Per contra, learned counsel petitioner/respondent has submitted that the Government Order dated 04.09.2000 was issued, whereby the 1974 Rules were made applicable to employees of Basic Shiksha Parishad. He has further submitted that vide Government Order dated 31.08.2002, unmarried brother was also included in the definition of dependent. On this basis, he has contended that the judgment and order dated 27.03.2018 passed by learned Single Judge is just and proper order and needs no interference.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

9. The reliance placed by the petitioner/respondent on the Government Order dated 04.09.2000 is misplaced, as it was issued by the erstwhile State of Uttar Pradesh before the reorganization of the State of Uttar Pradesh and after reorganization of the State of Uttar Pradesh, State of Uttarakhand have issued Government Order dated

08.04.2008 in respect of employees of Basic Shiksha Parishad serving in the State of Uttarakhand, wherein, the 1974 Rules were made applicable and as per this Government Order, unmarried brother was not included in the definition of dependent.

10. Moreover, as in the 1974 Rules, unmarried brother was not included in the definition of dependent, State of Uttarakhand vide order Government Order dated 31.08.2002 included brother in the definition of dependent, but, this Government Order was applicable only in respect of Government Servants.

11. It is settled proposition of law (i) that a provision for compassionate appointment makes a departure from the general provisions providing for appointment to a post by following a particular procedure of recruitment. Since such a provision enables appointment being made without following the said procedure, it is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions and must be resorted to only in order to achieve the stated objectives, i.e., to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis; (ii) Appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment. The reason for making such a benevolent scheme by the State or the public sector undertaking is to see that the dependants of the deceased are not deprived of the means of livelihood. It only enables the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis; (iii) Compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. Compassionate employment cannot be claimed or offered after a lapse of time and after the crisis is over. (iv) That compassionate appointment should be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such a case pending for years; (v) In determining as to whether the family is in financial crisis, all relevant aspects must be borne in mind including the income of the family, its liabilities, the terminal benefits if any, received by the family, the age, dependency and marital status of its members, together with the income from any other source.

12. The object underlying a provision for grant of compassionate employment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis due to the death of the bread-earner which has left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. Out of pure humanitarian consideration and having regard to the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be in a position to make both ends meet, a provision is made for giving gainful appointment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such appointment. Having regard to such an object, it would be of no avail to grant compassionate appointment to the dependants of the deceased employee, after the crisis which arose on account of death of a bread-winner, has been overcome.

13. In the present case, admittedly, the sister of the petitioner died on 05.06.2005 and more than 20 years have elapsed since her death. Taking into the object and aim of providing compassionate appointment, as discussed above, more than 20 years have elapsed. Where a long lapse of time has occurred since the date of death of the deceased employee, the sense of immediacy for seeking compassionate appointment would cease to exist and thus significance

14. With the above observation, the present Special Appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 27.03.2018 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 359 of 2010 is set-aside. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) Dated: 04.11.2025 Ujjwal (Alok Mahra, J.)