High Court · 2025

1. Heard Shri Ram Sajiwan Prajapati, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Vivek Ratan Agrawal learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 and perused the material available on record.

2. The petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment has been rejected by order dated 19.04.2025. The reason assigned in the order is that the last drawn monthly salary of the petitioner's late father was Rs.56,793/- whereas the net monthly notional income of the family from all sources, as declared by the family members, works out to Rs.52,894/-. It is further mentioned in the order that petitioner's mother, i.e. widow of the deceased employee, is drawing family pension of Rs.39,272/- as per pension slip of February, 2025 and that the family has received net terminal benefit of Rs.27.33 lacs (inclusive of Death Relief Fund of Rs.4,50,000/-). The Authority concerned has, therefore, found that family of the deceased employee cannot be considered as living in penury or financial destitution justifying immediate financial relief.

3. Challenging the order impugned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the application was filed by the petitioner within prescribed time after his father had died-in- harness coupled with the fact that the deceased has left behind 8 children, i.e. 6 sons and 2 daughters, the Authority should have given thoughtful consideration to the said aspects.

4. Shri Vivek Ratan Agrawal has supported the order impugned and he submits that in view of settled position of law that there is no vested right for compassionate appointment and the claim has to be considered on the parameters laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Dubey and others vs. State of U.P. and others: 2014(2) ADJ 312 (FB), the Authority has not erred in rejecting the claim of the petitioner.

5. Having considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties, the Court finds that the Authority has conducted proper analysis of the claim for compassionate appointment and has found that family of the petitioner cannot be considered as living in penury or financial destitution.

6. In the entire petition, the observations made in the order impugned regarding financial parameters have not been disputed, rather on a pointed query made by this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that except the petitioner, all other children of the deceased employee are working.

7. In Shiv Kumar Dubey (supra), the Full Bench of this Court, after discussing the entire law on the subject, has laid down as under:- "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."

8. On careful consideration of the claim of the petitioner as well as the reasoning assigned in the order impugned and following the law laid down in Full Bench judgment of this Court in Shiv Kumar Dubey (supra), this Court does not find any good ground to interfere in the order impugned which is based upon thoughtful consideration of the claim.

9. The writ petition has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 1.8.2025 Jyotsana JYOTSANA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Shri Ram Sajiwan Prajapati, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Vivek Ratan Agrawal learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4 and perused the material available on record.

2. The petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment has been rejected by order dated 19.04.2025. The reason assigned in the order is that the last drawn monthly salary of the petitioner's late father was Rs.56,793/- whereas the net monthly notional income of the family from all sources, as declared by the family members, works out to Rs.52,894/-. It is further mentioned in the order that petitioner's mother, i.e. widow of the deceased employee, is drawing family pension of Rs.39,272/- as per pension slip of February, 2025 and that the family has received net terminal benefit of Rs.27.33 lacs (inclusive of Death Relief Fund of Rs.4,50,000/-). The Authority concerned has, therefore, found that family of the deceased employee cannot be considered as living in penury or financial destitution justifying immediate financial relief.

3. Challenging the order impugned, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the application was filed by the petitioner within prescribed time after his father had died-in- harness coupled with the fact that the deceased has left behind 8 children, i.e. 6 sons and 2 daughters, the Authority should have given thoughtful consideration to the said aspects.

4. Shri Vivek Ratan Agrawal has supported the order impugned and he submits that in view of settled position of law that there is no vested right for compassionate appointment and the claim has to be considered on the parameters laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Dubey and others vs. State of U.P. and others: 2014(2) ADJ 312 (FB), the Authority has not erred in rejecting the claim of the petitioner.

5. Having considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties, the Court finds that the Authority has conducted proper analysis of the claim for compassionate appointment and has found that family of the petitioner cannot be considered as living in penury or financial destitution.

6. In the entire petition, the observations made in the order impugned regarding financial parameters have not been disputed, rather on a pointed query made by this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that except the petitioner, all other children of the deceased employee are working.

7. In Shiv Kumar Dubey (supra), the Full Bench of this Court, after discussing the entire law on the subject, has laid down as under:- "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."

8. On careful consideration of the claim of the petitioner as well as the reasoning assigned in the order impugned and following the law laid down in Full Bench judgment of this Court in Shiv Kumar Dubey (supra), this Court does not find any good ground to interfere in the order impugned which is based upon thoughtful consideration of the claim.

9. The writ petition has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 1.8.2025 Jyotsana JYOTSANA SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad