Km. Nandita Singh v. State Of U.P. And
Case Details
Heard Mr. Raghwendra Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Devesh Vikram, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record. The writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:- i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated order dated 19.06.2025, passed by respondent no.2 (Annexurel). ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the respondents to appoint to the petitioner in the post of clerk / Assistant Teacher, under the dying harness, with immediate effect. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that mother of the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on a regular basis in Junior High School, Shahjamal Kithor, Block- Machhara, District- Meerut. The petitioner's mother expired during her service period on 01.02.2017, after which the petitioner moved an application on 11.06.2020 before the respondent no.2-District Basic Education Officer, District- Meerut along with the death certificate of her mother, succession certificate, an affidavit as well as her educational qualification certificates, requesting for appointment on compassionate ground as an Assistant Teacher. On the aforesaid application as moved by the petitioner, the respondent no.2 issued letter dated 31.08.2020, informing that the appointment of the petitioner can be considered on Class-IV post only and in case she is interested in the appointment on Class-IV post, the claim can be made out up to a period of five years. The petitioner again moved an application on 07.09.2020 before the respondent no.2 requesting for the relevant Government Order dated 04.09.2000 about which mention has been made in the letter of respondent no.2 dated 31.08.2020. He further contends that several other representations were given but when nothing was done, Writ-A No. - 997 of 2025 (Km. Nandita Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others) was filed before this Court and the Court concerned vide order dated 24.1.2025, directed the respondent no.2 to take decision on the representation of the petitioner, in accordance with law. In compliance of the aforesaid, the application came to be rejected by order impugned dated 19.06.2025 on the ground of being time barred. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the aforesaid order has been passed in an illegal and arbitrary manner as the application for compassionate appointment was moved well within time i.e. 11.06.2020 and an information was given by respondent no.2 vide letter dated 31.08.2020, asking the petitioner to opt for Class-IV post and also mentioning that such an application could be moved within five years from then. Accordingly, from 31.08.2020, five years come to lapse on August, 2025. He further submits that the respondent no.2 was sitting tight over the representations and the same has been decided after interference of this Court pursuant to the orders passed in Writ-A No. - 997 of 2025 (Km. Nandita Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others). He further submits that the object and purpose of providing compassionate appointment is to enable the dependent members of the family of a deceased employee to tide over the immediate financial crisis caused by the death of the bread-earner. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submits that it was always open to the petitioner to move an application subsequent to the letter dated 31.08.2020 but till date, no such application has been moved. In case, any such application is moved, the same will be decided in view of the guidelines as laid down by full Bench of this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Dubey & others v. State of U.P. & others reported in 2014 SCC OnLine All 16214. The relevant paragraph no.29 is reproduced herein below:- "29. We now proceed to formulate the principles which must govern compassionate appointment in pursuance of Dying in Harness Rules: "(i) A provision for compassionate appointment is an exception to the principle that there must be an equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. The exception to be constitutionally valid has to be carefully structured and implemented in order to confine compassionate appointment to only those situations which subserve the basic object and purpose which is sought to be achieved; (ii) There is no general or vested right to compassionate appointment. Compassionate appointment can be claimed only where a scheme or rules provide for such appointment. Where such a provision is made in an administrative scheme or statutory rules, compassionate appointment must fall strictly within the scheme or, as the case may be, the rules; (iii) The object and purpose of providing compassionate appointment is to enable the dependent members of the family of a deceased employee to tide over the immediate financial crisis caused by the death of the bread-earner; (iv) 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 received by the family; the age, dependency and marital status of its members, together with the income from any other sources of employment; (v) 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 this would be a relevant circumstance which must weigh with the authorities in determining as to whether a case for the grant of compassionate appointment has been made out; (vi) Rule 5 mandates that ordinarily, an application for compassionate appointment must be made within five years of the date of death of the deceased employee. The power conferred by the first proviso is a discretion to relax the period in a case of undue hardship and for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner; (vii) The burden lies on the applicant, where there is a delay in making an application within the period of five years to establish a case on the basis of reasons and a justification supported by documentary and other evidence. It is for the State Government after considering all the facts to take an appropriate decision. The power to relax is in the nature of an exception and is conditioned by the existence of objective considerations to the satisfaction of the government; (viii) Provisions for the grant of compassionate appointment do not constitute a reservation of a post in favour of a member of the family of the deceased employee. Hence, there is no general right which can be asserted to the effect that a member of the family who was a minor at the time of death would be entitled to claim compassionate appointment upon attaining majority. Where the rules provide for a period of time within which an application has to be made, the operation of the rule is not suspended during the minority of a member of the family." Nothing is there on record to show the aspects as to what financial difficulty are being faced by the petitioner's family as well as others as laid down in the guidelines, therefore, it would not be proper to adjudicate the matter on merits. However, in case a fresh representation is moved before the respondent no.2 by the petitioner, requesting for appointment on Class-IV post, within two weeks from today, the same shall be considered and decided within four weeks thereafter, by reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law, keeping in the mind the guidelines as laid down in the case of Shiv Kumar Dubey (supra). Learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents though opposed the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, but submits that the matter may be remanded back to the respondent no.2 for passing fresh reasoned order. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 19.06.2025 passed by respondent no.2 is hereby set-aside. The matter is remanded back to respondent no.2-District Basic Education Officer, District- Meerut to decide the representation as moved by the petitioner, without being affected by the observations as made by this Court, strictly in accordance with law, by means of reasoned and speaking order, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment. The petitioner shall move a fresh representation, requesting for appointment on Class-IV post before respondent no.2, within a period of two weeks from today. Order Date :- 9.7.2025 Kalp Nath Singh KALP NATH SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Heard Mr. Raghwendra Prasad Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Devesh Vikram, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State and perused the record. The writ petition has been filed with the following prayers:- i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated order dated 19.06.2025, passed by respondent no.2 (Annexurel). ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing to the respondents to appoint to the petitioner in the post of clerk / Assistant Teacher, under the dying harness, with immediate effect. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that mother of the petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on a regular basis in Junior High School, Shahjamal Kithor, Block- Machhara, District- Meerut. The petitioner's mother expired during her service period on 01.02.2017, after which the petitioner moved an application on 11.06.2020 before the respondent no.2-District Basic Education Officer, District- Meerut along with the death certificate of her mother, succession certificate, an affidavit as well as her educational qualification certificates, requesting for appointment on compassionate ground as an Assistant Teacher. On the aforesaid application as moved by the petitioner, the respondent no.2 issued letter dated 31.08.2020, informing that the appointment of the petitioner can be considered on Class-IV post only and in case she is interested in the appointment on Class-IV post, the claim can be made out up to a period of five years. The petitioner again moved an application on 07.09.2020 before the respondent no.2 requesting for the relevant Government Order dated 04.09.2000 about which mention has been made in the letter of respondent no.2 dated 31.08.2020. He further contends that several other representations were given but when nothing was done, Writ-A No. - 997 of 2025 (Km. Nandita Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others) was filed before this Court and the Court concerned vide order dated 24.1.2025, directed the respondent no.2 to take decision on the representation of the petitioner, in accordance with law. In compliance of the aforesaid, the application came to be rejected by order impugned dated 19.06.2025 on the ground of being time barred. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the aforesaid order has been passed in an illegal and arbitrary manner as the application for compassionate appointment was moved well within time i.e. 11.06.2020 and an information was given by respondent no.2 vide letter dated 31.08.2020, asking the petitioner to opt for Class-IV post and also mentioning that such an application could be moved within five years from then. Accordingly, from 31.08.2020, five years come to lapse on August, 2025. He further submits that the respondent no.2 was sitting tight over the representations and the same has been decided after interference of this Court pursuant to the orders passed in Writ-A No. - 997 of 2025 (Km. Nandita Singh vs. State Of U.P. And 3 Others). He further submits that the object and purpose of providing compassionate appointment is to enable the dependent members of the family of a deceased employee to tide over the immediate financial crisis caused by the death of the bread-earner. Learned counsel for the respondent no.2 submits that it was always open to the petitioner to move an application subsequent to the letter dated 31.08.2020 but till date, no such application has been moved. In case, any such application is moved, the same will be decided in view of the guidelines as laid down by full Bench of this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Dubey & others v. State of U.P. & others reported in 2014 SCC OnLine All 16214. The relevant paragraph no.29 is reproduced herein below:- "29. We now proceed to formulate the principles which must govern compassionate appointment in pursuance of Dying in Harness Rules: "(i) A provision for compassionate appointment is an exception to the principle that there must be an equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. The exception to be constitutionally valid has to be carefully structured and implemented in order to confine compassionate appointment to only those situations which subserve the basic object and purpose which is sought to be achieved; (ii) There is no general or vested right to compassionate appointment. Compassionate appointment can be claimed only where a scheme or rules provide for such appointment. Where such a provision is made in an administrative scheme or statutory rules, compassionate appointment must fall strictly within the scheme or, as the case may be, the rules; (iii) The object and purpose of providing compassionate appointment is to enable the dependent members of the family of a deceased employee to tide over the immediate financial crisis caused by the death of the bread-earner; (iv) 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 received by the family; the age, dependency and marital status of its members, together with the income from any other sources of employment; (v) 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 this would be a relevant circumstance which must weigh with the authorities in determining as to whether a case for the grant of compassionate appointment has been made out; (vi) Rule 5 mandates that ordinarily, an application for compassionate appointment must be made within five years of the date of death of the deceased employee. The power conferred by the first proviso is a discretion to relax the period in a case of undue hardship and for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner; (vii) The burden lies on the applicant, where there is a delay in making an application within the period of five years to establish a case on the basis of reasons and a justification supported by documentary and other evidence. It is for the State Government after considering all the facts to take an appropriate decision. The power to relax is in the nature of an exception and is conditioned by the existence of objective considerations to the satisfaction of the government; (viii) Provisions for the grant of compassionate appointment do not constitute a reservation of a post in favour of a member of the family of the deceased employee. Hence, there is no general right which can be asserted to the effect that a member of the family who was a minor at the time of death would be entitled to claim compassionate appointment upon attaining majority. Where the rules provide for a period of time within which an application has to be made, the operation of the rule is not suspended during the minority of a member of the family." Nothing is there on record to show the aspects as to what financial difficulty are being faced by the petitioner's family as well as others as laid down in the guidelines, therefore, it would not be proper to adjudicate the matter on merits. However, in case a fresh representation is moved before the respondent no.2 by the petitioner, requesting for appointment on Class-IV post, within two weeks from today, the same shall be considered and decided within four weeks thereafter, by reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law, keeping in the mind the guidelines as laid down in the case of Shiv Kumar Dubey (supra). Learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents though opposed the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner, but submits that the matter may be remanded back to the respondent no.2 for passing fresh reasoned order. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 19.06.2025 passed by respondent no.2 is hereby set-aside. The matter is remanded back to respondent no.2-District Basic Education Officer, District- Meerut to decide the representation as moved by the petitioner, without being affected by the observations as made by this Court, strictly in accordance with law, by means of reasoned and speaking order, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment. The petitioner shall move a fresh representation, requesting for appointment on Class-IV post before respondent no.2, within a period of two weeks from today. Order Date :- 9.7.2025 Kalp Nath Singh KALP NATH SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad