Tanya Sharma v. Counsel for

Heard Mr. Vinay Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Nagendra Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for respondent-B.S.A. as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State. The present petition has been filed with the prayer to direct the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's application dated

12.3.2025 for compassionate appointment under the Rules of 2014 and a further prayer to direct the respondents to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner on a suitable post commensurate with her qualification. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner's mother was working as Assistant Teacher in Primary School Batupura, Block- Gajraula, District- Amroha, who died in harness on 23.07.2017 and at that time, the petitioner was about 15 years old. After attaining the age of majority, she moved an application on 14.6.2022 for being considered for appointment on compassionate ground, under the Dying in Harness Rules. She had also mentioned in the said application that as she was qualified to be appointed as Junior Clerk, she may be considered for the said post in addition to the request, made for being appointed on compassionate ground. On the aforesaid application, the respondent no.3-Basic Education 2 WRIA No. 10736 of 2025 Officer, District- Amroha (U.P.) vide letter dated 21.6.2022, gave information to the petitioner to join any Group-D post for the reason that the petitioner did not possess the essential qualification of CCC certification issued by DOEACC Society, not having typing speed of 25/30 words per minute, as also the fact that no vacancy of Junior Clerk existed. In the aforesaid letter, the District Basic Education Officer, District- Amroha had also informed the petitioner that she could be considered for Class-IV post. After receiving the aforesaid communication, the petitioner on 2.7.2022, represented before the authorities concerned but nothing has been done till date, hence the present petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being the unmarried daughter of the deceased employee and being dependent on her mother, moved an application on 14.6.2022 i.e. within five years from the death of her mother and her request for being appointed as Junior Clerk was rejected by communication letter dated 21.6.2022, also informing the petitioner that she could be considered for appointment on Class-IV post. Despite application being given after the aforesaid, no orders have been passed till date. The petitioner had moved an application mentioning the hardship which she was facing after the death of her mother i.e. she being unmarried, having abandoned by her father and her father having re-married, therefore, she was left with nothing for her survival. She being an unmarried lady was at the verge of starvation but the representation of the petitioner dated 2.7.2022, for being appointed on Class-IV post has not been considered till date. Learned counsel for respondent-B.S.A. submits that it is not disputed that the petitioner is dependent of the deceased employee and was eligible for being considered for appointment on Class-IV post but the same could not be considered under the impression that the application dated 2.7.2022 has been moved after lapse of five years. He further submits that the application of the petitioner shall be considered, in accordance with law. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 3 WRIA No. 10736 of 2025 It is settled position of law that the appointment under Dying in Harness Rules has to be considered seeing the financial status, the eligibility and the dependency of the person concerned. It is not disputed that the petitioner was dependent upon her mother as the circumstances were well explained in the representation as given by the petitioner for being considered on Class-IV post after rejection of her claim by communication letter dated letter dated 21.6.2022 for being considered on the post of Junior Clerk. Thus, the limitation has to be seen from

14.6.2022. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had submitted her initial application within the prescribed period of five years, from the date of death of the deceased employee. However, by communication letter dated

21.06.2022, the petitioner was asked to furnish her consent for being considered for appointment to a Class IV post, which she duly complied with. Nevertheless, on an erroneous presumption that the period of five years had lapsed without reckoning it from the date of submission of the initial application, the petitioner’s case was not considered. Such an approach, in the opinion of this Court, is unjustified, arbitrary, and unsustainable in the eyes of law. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Dubey & others vs. State of U.P. & others in Special Appeal Nos.356, 371 and 379 of 2012, has held following 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 4 WRIA No. 10736 of 2025 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." 5 WRIA No. 10736 of 2025 In view of the above facts and circumstances, mandamus is issued to the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground and appoint the petitioner on the Class-IV post, at the earliest, as she is entitled for the same. With the aforesaid direction, the present petition is disposed of. September 4, 2025 Kalp Nath Singh (Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.) KALP NATH SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Heard Mr. Vinay Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Nagendra Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for respondent-B.S.A. as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State. The present petition has been filed with the prayer to direct the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner's application dated

12.3.2025 for compassionate appointment under the Rules of 2014 and a further prayer to direct the respondents to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner on a suitable post commensurate with her qualification. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner's mother was working as Assistant Teacher in Primary School Batupura, Block- Gajraula, District- Amroha, who died in harness on 23.07.2017 and at that time, the petitioner was about 15 years old. After attaining the age of majority, she moved an application on 14.6.2022 for being considered for appointment on compassionate ground, under the Dying in Harness Rules. She had also mentioned in the said application that as she was qualified to be appointed as Junior Clerk, she may be considered for the said post in addition to the request, made for being appointed on compassionate ground. On the aforesaid application, the respondent no.3-Basic Education 2 WRIA No. 10736 of 2025 Officer, District- Amroha (U.P.) vide letter dated 21.6.2022, gave information to the petitioner to join any Group-D post for the reason that the petitioner did not possess the essential qualification of CCC certification issued by DOEACC Society, not having typing speed of 25/30 words per minute, as also the fact that no vacancy of Junior Clerk existed. In the aforesaid letter, the District Basic Education Officer, District- Amroha had also informed the petitioner that she could be considered for Class-IV post. After receiving the aforesaid communication, the petitioner on 2.7.2022, represented before the authorities concerned but nothing has been done till date, hence the present petition has been filed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner being the unmarried daughter of the deceased employee and being dependent on her mother, moved an application on 14.6.2022 i.e. within five years from the death of her mother and her request for being appointed as Junior Clerk was rejected by communication letter dated 21.6.2022, also informing the petitioner that she could be considered for appointment on Class-IV post. Despite application being given after the aforesaid, no orders have been passed till date. The petitioner had moved an application mentioning the hardship which she was facing after the death of her mother i.e. she being unmarried, having abandoned by her father and her father having re-married, therefore, she was left with nothing for her survival. She being an unmarried lady was at the verge of starvation but the representation of the petitioner dated 2.7.2022, for being appointed on Class-IV post has not been considered till date. Learned counsel for respondent-B.S.A. submits that it is not disputed that the petitioner is dependent of the deceased employee and was eligible for being considered for appointment on Class-IV post but the same could not be considered under the impression that the application dated 2.7.2022 has been moved after lapse of five years. He further submits that the application of the petitioner shall be considered, in accordance with law. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 3 WRIA No. 10736 of 2025 It is settled position of law that the appointment under Dying in Harness Rules has to be considered seeing the financial status, the eligibility and the dependency of the person concerned. It is not disputed that the petitioner was dependent upon her mother as the circumstances were well explained in the representation as given by the petitioner for being considered on Class-IV post after rejection of her claim by communication letter dated letter dated 21.6.2022 for being considered on the post of Junior Clerk. Thus, the limitation has to be seen from

14.6.2022. It is not in dispute that the petitioner had submitted her initial application within the prescribed period of five years, from the date of death of the deceased employee. However, by communication letter dated

21.06.2022, the petitioner was asked to furnish her consent for being considered for appointment to a Class IV post, which she duly complied with. Nevertheless, on an erroneous presumption that the period of five years had lapsed without reckoning it from the date of submission of the initial application, the petitioner’s case was not considered. Such an approach, in the opinion of this Court, is unjustified, arbitrary, and unsustainable in the eyes of law. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Dubey & others vs. State of U.P. & others in Special Appeal Nos.356, 371 and 379 of 2012, has held following 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 4 WRIA No. 10736 of 2025 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." 5 WRIA No. 10736 of 2025 In view of the above facts and circumstances, mandamus is issued to the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground and appoint the petitioner on the Class-IV post, at the earliest, as she is entitled for the same. With the aforesaid direction, the present petition is disposed of. September 4, 2025 Kalp Nath Singh (Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.) KALP NATH SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad