# Prinsu Singh v. U.O.I. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 9 ILRA 1005
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-09-25
- **Case number:** Writ - A No. 5353 of 2025
- **Bench:** Ajay Bhanot
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/prinsu-singh-v-u-o-i-ors-54756
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

A.S.G.I.,
Satish
Chaturvedi,
Sudarshan
Singh

Issue for Consideration
Permissibility to condone the inordinate delay
caused in approaching the High Court in respect
of matter relating to claim of compassionate
appointment.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Constitution of India -
Article
14
and
16
-
Compassionate
appointment - Rationale and Purpose -
Appointment in the public office - Extent
of compromising with the principle of
merit while making such appointment :
Held : Appointments on compassionate grounds
is a departure and an exception to the public
process of appointments as stipulated in the
Constitution.
Compassionate
appointments
reflect the commitment of the State as a model
employer to the welfare of its employees - The
sole
purpose
of
compassionate
ground
appointments is to provide prompt financial
succour to a family of the deceased government
employee
which
faces
sudden
financial
destitution as a result of the death of the
employee in harness - Under the constitutional
scheme of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
appointments to government posts have to be
achieved by merit and not acquired by
inheritance. Constitutional law holdings have
disapproved
conversion
of
compassionate
appointments into a source of recruitment.
[Paras 5, 6 and 9]

(B) Service law - Constitution of India -
Article 226 - Writ - Scope of Interference
-
Delay
and
laches
-
Claim
of
compassionate appointment - Though,
first application was made within six
months, but IInd application was made
and subsequently writ petition was filed in
the
High
Court
after
five
years
-
Condonation of delay - Permissibility -
Filing of representations over long year,
how far relevant :
Held : The delay in approaching the Court was
deliberate choice made by the petitioner and not
a
fait
accompli
forced
by
penurious
circumstances. On the contrary as seen earlier
the petitioner had busied himself in litigation for
long years with his family members. He was
always aware of his rights and possessed the
wherewithal to approach this Court as well. In
these circumstances the laches on the part of
the petitioner in approaching this Court are not
liable to be condoned. The writ petition is
barred by delay and laches - Mere filing of
representations over long years or even
instituting a writ petition to decide the same
after a long delay does not condone the laches
on the part of the litigation. [Paras 20 and 21]
Held further : The respondent bank is certainly
precluded from denying the compassionate
grounds appointment on the grounds of delay in
view of Ajit Kumar's case. However, this Court
can always look into the issue of delay and
laches on the part of the petitioner and decline
to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. [Para
25]

Case Law Cited
Ashish Yadav v. Managing Director, UP State
Road
Transport
Corporation
and
others
rendered in Writ A No. 17483 of 2024; Canara
Bank v. Ajithkumar G.K., 2025 SCC OnLine SC
290; C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining
and another, (2008) 10 SCC 115; Gian Singh
Mann v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana and
another, (1980) 4 SCC 266 - referred to. (E-1)

List of Acts
1006 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
e-Circular dated 16.03.2021 - Clause 9

List of Keywords
Reinstatement; Backwages; Consequential
benefits; Died in harness; Appointment on
compassionate grounds; Public process of
appointment; Sudden financial destitution;
Open
selection;
Competitive
merit;
Government post; Inheritance; Kin; Vigilant;
Delay; Financial crisis; Legitimacy; Rationale;
Vested
right;
Condoning
delay;
Fait
accompli;
Litigation;
Constitutional
law;
Misplaced sympathy; Overliberal approach;
Hereditary appointment; Reservation.

Case Arising From
Inaction of the respondent in not deciding the
representation for compassionate appointment.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioners : Sankalp Narain,
Srivats Narain
Advs. for the Respondeents : A.S.G.I., Satish
Chaturv

## Text

9 All. Prinsu Singh Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
1005
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 1005
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Writ - A No. 5353 of 2025

Prinsu Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sankalp Narain, Srivats Narain

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I.,
Satish
Chaturvedi,
Sudarshan
Singh

Issue for Consideration
Permissibility to condone the inordinate delay
caused in approaching the High Court in respect
of matter relating to claim of compassionate
appointment.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Constitution of India -
Article
14
and
16
-
Compassionate
appointment - Rationale and Purpose -
Appointment in the public office - Extent
of compromising with the principle of
merit while making such appointment :
Held : Appointments on compassionate grounds
is a departure and an exception to the public
process of appointments as stipulated in the
Constitution.
Compassionate
appointments
reflect the commitment of the State as a model
employer to the welfare of its employees - The
sole
purpose
of
compassionate
ground
appointments is to provide prompt financial
succour to a family of the deceased government
employee
which
faces
sudden
financial
destitution as a result of the death of the
employee in harness - Under the constitutional
scheme of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution
appointments to government posts have to be
achieved by merit and not acquired by
inheritance. Constitutional law holdings have
disapproved
conversion
of
compassionate
appointments into a source of recruitment.
[Paras 5, 6 and 9]

(B) Service law - Constitution of India -
Article 226 - Writ - Scope of Interference
-
Delay
and
laches
-
Claim
of
compassionate appointment - Though,
first application was made within six
months, but IInd application was made
and subsequently writ petition was filed in
the
High
Court
after
five
years
-
Condonation of delay - Permissibility -
Filing of representations over long year,
how far relevant :
Held : The delay in approaching the Court was
deliberate choice made by the petitioner and not
a
fait
accompli
forced
by
penurious
circumstances. On the contrary as seen earlier
the petitioner had busied himself in litigation for
long years with his family members. He was
always aware of his rights and possessed the
wherewithal to approach this Court as well. In
these circumstances the laches on the part of
the petitioner in approaching this Court are not
liable to be condoned. The writ petition is
barred by delay and laches - Mere filing of
representations over long years or even
instituting a writ petition to decide the same
after a long delay does not condone the laches
on the part of the litigation. [Paras 20 and 21]
Held further : The respondent bank is certainly
precluded from denying the compassionate
grounds appointment on the grounds of delay in
view of Ajit Kumar's case. However, this Court
can always look into the issue of delay and
laches on the part of the petitioner and decline
to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. [Para
25]

Case Law Cited
Ashish Yadav v. Managing Director, UP State
Road
Transport
Corporation
and
others
rendered in Writ A No. 17483 of 2024; Canara
Bank v. Ajithkumar G.K., 2025 SCC OnLine SC
290; C. Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining
and another, (2008) 10 SCC 115; Gian Singh
Mann v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana and
another, (1980) 4 SCC 266 - referred to. (E-1)

List of Acts
1006 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
e-Circular dated 16.03.2021 - Clause 9

List of Keywords
Reinstatement; Backwages; Consequential
benefits; Died in harness; Appointment on
compassionate grounds; Public process of
appointment; Sudden financial destitution;
Open
selection;
Competitive
merit;
Government post; Inheritance; Kin; Vigilant;
Delay; Financial crisis; Legitimacy; Rationale;
Vested
right;
Condoning
delay;
Fait
accompli;
Litigation;
Constitutional
law;
Misplaced sympathy; Overliberal approach;
Hereditary appointment; Reservation.

Case Arising From
Inaction of the respondent in not deciding the
representation for compassionate appointment.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioners : Sankalp Narain,
Srivats Narain
Advs. for the Respondeents : A.S.G.I., Satish
Chaturvedi, Sudarshan Singh

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot, J.)

I. Introduction

1. The petitioner made a claim for
appointment on compassionate grounds on
24.01.2020. The petitioner has sought for
the following relief:

"(i) To issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondents to forthwith
decide the applications preferred by the
petitioner
seeking
his
compassionate
appointment, dated 24.01.2020 as well as
04.04.2025 (Annexure no. 6 and 8 to this
writ petition).

(ii) To issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
commanding the respondent authorities to
grant him compassionate appointment as
expeditiously as possible."

II. Facts established from the
record

2. The father of the petitioner was
dismissed from service by order dated
10.05.2006. The father of the petitioner
instituted proceedings before the labour
court against the order of dismissal. The
labour court by award dated 16.10.2015 set
aside the dismissal of the petitioner's father
from service and directed reinstatement
with full backwages and all consequential
benefits attached to the post. The award of
the labour court was assailed before this
Court by instituting Writ C No. 53989 of
2016 (D.G.M. (Appellate Authority) State
Bank of India Vs. Central Govt. Industrial
Tribunal Cum Labour Court). The writ
petition is still pending. Steps to expedite
the hearing of the said writ petition are not
disclosed in the writ petition. The following
order was passed in the aforesaid writ
petition:

"Till the next date of listing,
effect and operation of the impugned award
dated 16 October 2015, published on 28
April 2016, shall remain stayed provided
the respondent workman is reinstated
within one month from date and 25% of his
back wages is released within three months
thereafter.

It is clarified that the sum
released in favour of the workman and the
balance back wages shall be subject to final
decision of the writ petition."

3. The father of the petitioner died in
harness on 08.12.2019. An application for
grant of appointment on compassionate
grounds was preferred on behalf of the
petitioner by his mother on 24.01.2020.
Subsequently another application was made
on 04.04.2025 for the same purpose.
9 All. Prinsu Singh Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
1007

4. The petitioner claims that he had
made several representations over the years
for compassionate appointment.

III. Appointment on compassionate
grounds : Rationale & Purpose

5. The process of appointments on
compassionate grounds is a departure and
an exception to the public process of
appointments
as
stipulated
in
the
Constitution. Compassionate appointments
reflect the commitment of the State as a
model employer to the welfare of its
employees.

6. The sole purpose of compassionate
ground appointments is to provide prompt
financial succour to a family of the
deceased government employee which
faces sudden financial destitution as a
result of the death of the employee in
harness.
The
appointments
on
compassionate grounds have passed the test
of constitutionality by a slender margin and
on the above grounds alone.

7. Appointments on compassionate
grounds give a sheltered entry to the
dependents of a deceased employee into
government service without the rigors of an
open selection procedure. The competitive
merit of candidates is of no relevance since
the
appointments
are
made
without
adopting the public selection procedure.
Norms of recruitment are completely
relaxed for appointment on compassionate
grounds. However the law requires the
applicants
to
possess
minimum
qualifications for the posts.

8.
Considering
the
aforesaid
limitations
of
compassionate
ground
appointments, it has been held by good
authority that there is no vested right to an
appointment on compassionate grounds.
Further, the right to compassionate ground
appointment is derived only from specific
provisions in this regard and the same have
to be strictly adhered to. An unduly liberal
view while interpreting the aforesaid rules
may make the appointments vulnerable to
reproach by the equality clause of the
Constitution.

9. Appointments on compassionate
grounds made in violation of the Rules
governing such appointments or without
examination of relevant factors as per law,
or in the teeth of holdings of Constitutional
Courts in point will shear the cloak of
legality from these appointments and will
reduce the said appointments to a class of
hereditary
appointments.
Under
the
constitutional scheme of Articles 14 and 16
of
the
Constitution
appointments
to
government posts have to be achieved by
merit and not acquired by inheritance.
Constitutional
law
holdings
have
disapproved conversion of compassionate
appointments into a source of recruitment.

IV.
Delay
in
compassionate
appointment

10. It is also important to state that
the appointment on compassionate grounds
is not intended to create a windfall for the
kin of the deceased but only provide means
of the family of the deceased to keep the
kitchen fire burning.

11. The legislative intent and
judicial rationale for appointment on
compassionate grounds is subserved only
when an application for appointment on
compassionate grounds is made in quick
time and in near proximity to the death of
the employee. No delay can be brooked in
the applications for grant of appointment
1008 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
on compassionate grounds. Constitutional
law holdings regarding compassionate
ground
appointment
mandate
that
dependents claimants have to be vigilant
about their rights and ought to diligently
prosecute their application for appointment.
Delay in filing of the application or apathy
in prosecution of the case before the Court
for grant of compassionate appointment has
not been countenanced by the Courts.
Delay in filing of the application for
appointment, or laches in instituting a writ
petition
before
the
Court
raises
a
presumption that financial crises being
faced by the family of the deceased has
ceased to exist.

12. The delays can be of two types
namely delay in filing the application and
neglecting to prosecute the same before the
authorities, and laches in invoking the writ
jurisdiction after failure of the authorities to
process the application in an expeditious
time frame. Delays of both the aforesaid
categories are fatal to the legitimacy of the
claim for compassionate appointments. In
such cases the rationale for compassionate
appointment does not survive due to the
said delays or laches. Infact pretty often
such delays reflect an entitlement culture
which has taken root by an over liberal
attitude
in
grant
of
compassionate
appointment.
Further
filing
such
applications or writ petition after an
inordinate delay also evidence a misplaced
view that such appointments are a vested
right. The law has clearly set its face
against the delays of both kinds as
discussed earlier.

V. Delay in the facts of this case

13. In the facts and circumstances
of the case the petitioner has sought to
explain the delay by filing a supplementary
affidavit. According to the petitioner he had
passed intermediate in the year 2017. He
was enrolled in BA course in Prof.
Rajendra Singh (Rajju Bhaiya) University
of Prayagraj in the academic year 2018-19.
The petitioner completed his graduation in
the year 2021. Thereafter as per the
petitioner he was involved in litigation
against his uncle in the year 2022 which is
still pending.

14. According to the petitioner the
scheme which is applicable to his case is
the
revised
scheme
for
grant
of
appointment on compassionate grounds in
State Bank of India. The scheme was
promulgated on 16.03.2021. The relevant
provision relied on for supporting the
argument that there are no laches on the
part of the petitioner is clause 9 of the eCircular dated 16.03.2021. Clause 9 is
extracted hereunder for ease of reference:

 "9. Time Limit For Considering
Applications-

 Request
for
compassionate
appointment should be submitted within six
months from the date of death/retirement
on medical grounds due to incapacitation
before reaching the age of 55 years.

 In some cases the dependent
family may not be ready to submit the
application for compassionate appointment
in view of the fact that the dependent child
is minor and may wait to attain the eligible
age and qualification etc. required for the
position under
compassionate
ground.
When the dependent child is in the midst of
some higher course, he/she may require
some ore time to complete the course
before
applying
for
the
job
under
compassionate ground. While considering
such belated requests, it should be kept in
9 All. Prinsu Singh Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
1009
view that the concept of compassionate
appointment is largely related to the need
for immediate assistance to the family of
the employee in order to relieve it from
economic distress. The very fact that the
family has been able to manage somehow
all these years should normally be taken as
adequate proof that the family had some
dependable
means
of
subsistence.
Therefore, examination of such cases
would
call
for
a
great
deal
of
circumspection. In this connection, five
years shall be the outside limit in all cases
and
no
proposals
for
compassionate
appointment of a dependent will be
considered after five years from the date of
'death of employee'/ 'retirement of the
employee on medical ground'

15. The scheme contemplates that
the application for compassionate grounds
appointment is liable to be submitted
within six months from the date of death of
the employee.

16. The first application was made
on behalf of the petitioner within the
aforesaid
time
period.
The
second
application/reminder was admittedly made
after a period of five years. The provision
in the scheme which gives some latitude to
the employee for condoning the delay have
to be read in light of the holdings of
constitutional courts and in the facts and
circumstances of each case so as to ensure
that eligible claimants are not denied their
just dues or rights under the scheme. The
scheme envisages that the dependent child
should be in the midst of some higher
(educational) course, and may require some
more time to complete the course before
applying for job under compassionate
ground.
The
said
precondition
for
enlargement of time for applying for
compassionate appointment or grant of
such appointment is not satisfied in this
case as the succeeding paragraphs will
demonstrate.

17. Admittedly the petitioner has
completed graduation in the year 2021. He
did not pursue any higher course thereafter.
Thereafter almost a half decade was spent
by him in family litigation. The fact is that
the petitioner showed no sense of urgency
for approaching the Court, but was instead
continuously engaged himself in family
litigation. The conduct of the petitioner
gives rise to the inference that immediate
financial crises which the family may have
sustained as a result of the death of the
employee in the year 2019 had long ceased
to exist. In wake of the above said facts the
clause in the compassionate appointment
scheme relied upon by the petitioner is not
applicable to the facts of this Case and the
petitioner cannot benefit from the same.

 12. This Court in Ashish Yadav
Vs. Managing Director, UP State Road
Transport
Corporation
and
others
rendered in Writ A No. 17483 of 2024)
stated as under:

 "25. A Division Bench of this
Court after citing authorities in point also
concluded that financial penury ceases to
exist in case an application was made long
years after the death of the employee in the
case of Smt. Sonal Laviniya and another vs.
Union of India and another reported at
2003 (5) AWC 4070:

 "38.The purpose of providing
such an employment has been to render the
financial assistance to the family, which
has lost the bread earner immediately after
the death of the employee. If the
application has been filed after expiry of
9 years the element of immediate need
1010 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
stood evaporated and there was no occasion
for the respondents to consider the case of
the petitioner for such a relief. The
observation made by the learned Tribunal
are in consonance with the law laid down
by the Hon'ble Apex Court and no
exception can be taken out."

 19. More recently the Supreme
Court in Canara Bank v. Ajithkumar
G.K. reported at 2025 SCC OnLine SC
290 while examining the impact on the
legality of appointment on compassionate
grounds held as under:

 "11.(j).
An
application
for
compassionate appointment has to be made
immediately upon death/incapacitation and
in any case within a reasonable period
thereof or else a presumption could be
drawn
that
the
family
of
the
deceased/incapacitated employee is not in
immediate need of financial assistance.
Such appointment not being a vested right,
the right to apply cannot be exercised at
any time in future and it cannot be
offered whatever the lapse of time and
after the crisis is over.

 (emphasis supplied)

 27. Lapse of time could, however,
be
a
major
factor
for
denying
compassionate appointment where the
claim is lodged belatedly. A presumption is
legitimately drawn in cases of claims
lodged belatedly that the family of the
deceased/incapacitated employee is not in
immediate need of financial assistance.
However, what would be a reasonable time
would largely depend on the policy/scheme
for
compassionate
appointment
under
consideration. If any time limit has been
prescribed for making an application and
the claimant applies within such period,
lapse of time cannot be assigned as a
ground for rejection."

20. As stated earlier in the facts of
this case the petitioner had undoubtedly
made the application within the prescribed
time but had approached this Court after an
inordinate delay. The delay in approaching
the Court was deliberate choice made by
the petitioner and not a fait accompli forced
by
penurious
circumstances.
On
the
contrary as seen earlier the petitioner had
busied himself in litigation for long years
with his family members. He was always
aware of his rights and possessed the
wherewithal to approach this Court as well.
In these circumstances the laches on the
part of the petitioner in approaching this
Court are not liable to be condoned. The
writ petition is barred by delay and laches.

21. The second aspect as to
whether filing of representations would
suffice to condone the laches in instituting
the writ petition will now be examined. The
law is well settled that mere filing of
representations over long years or even
instituting a writ petition to decide the same
after a long delay does not condone the
laches on the part of the litigation. The
discussion
has
advantage
of
good
authorities in point.

22. The Supreme Court in C.
Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining
and another reported at (2008) 10 SCC
115 held as under:

 "Every
representation
to
the
Government for relief, may not be replied
on merits. Representations relating to
matters which have become stale or barred
by limitation, can be rejected on that
ground alone, without examining the merits
of the claim. In regard to representations
9 All. Prinsu Singh Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
1011
unrelated to the department, the reply may
be only to inform that the matter did not
concern the department or to inform the
appropriate department. Representations
with incomplete particulars may be replied
by seeking relevant particulars. The replies
to such representations, cannot furnish a
fresh cause of action or revive a stale or
dead claim."

23. The Supreme Court in Gian
Singh Mann v. High Court of Punjab
and Haryana and another reported at
(1980) 4 SCC 266 held as under:

 "3. In regard to the petitioner's
claim for promotion to the Selection Grade
post in the Punjab Civil Service (Judicial
Branch) with effect from 1st November,
1966, and to a post in the Punjab Superior
Judicial Service with effect from 1st May,
1967 on the basis that a post had been
reserved in each of the services for a
member of the Scheduled Castes, it seems
to us that the claim is grossly belated. The
writ petition was filed in this Court in 1978,
about eleven years after the dates from
which the promotions are claimed. There is
no valid explanation for the delay. That the
petitioner
was
making
successive
representations during this period can
hardly
justify
our
overlooking
the
inordinate delay. Relief must be refused on
that ground. It is not necessary, in the
circumstances, to consider the further
submission of the respondents that the
provision on which the petitioner relies as
the basis of his claim is concerned with the
appointment only of members of the
Scheduled Castes to posts in the Punjab
Superior Judicial Service and not to
recruitment by promotion to that service."

24. This Court has to be conscious
of the fact that constitutional law holdings
have
repeatedly
cautioned
that
compassionate grounds appointments are
not vested right nor can they be claimed
or granted as a matter of course. Misplaced
sympathy or an overliberal approach in
construing the issue of delay without regard
to the facts and circumstances of the case
will denude the very legality of the
compassionate ground appointment. If
compassionate appointments are allowed to
be claimed without regard to the holdings
of constitutional courts, such appointments
will end up the hereditary appointment and
will amount to reservation without the
authority of law. Furthermore any such
appointments made out of misplaced
sympathy will preclude a more eligible
claimant from applying for the appointment
through the open source of recruitment and
on competitive merit.

25.
The
respondent
bank
is
certainly precluded from denying the
compassionate grounds appointment on the
grounds of delay in view of Ajit Kumar
(supra). However, this Court can always
look into the issue of delay and laches on
the part of the petitioner and decline to
exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

26. In the facts and circumstances
of this case, this Court has not condoned
the delay and laches on the part of the
petitioner, but equally the Court cannot
countenance the apathy on part of the
respondent bank. Costs of Rs. 100,000/-
are imposed upon the respondent bank
for failing to decide the representation of
the petitioner in an expeditious time
frame in light of the charter of their
duties. The costs shall be paid to the
petitioner within a period of two months
from the date of receipt of a certified
copy of this order.
1012 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
27. In wake of the preceding
discussions, the writ petition is liable to be
dismissed and is dismissed.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 1012
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 12.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.

Writ - A No. 6421 of 1993

Arvind Nath Tewari N- State ...Petitioner
Versus
Cane
Commissioner
U.P.
Lucknow/
Chairman & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
M. Afzal, Dileep Kumar Srivastava, Jaideep
Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.,
Anad
Shanker
Asthana,
Paramanand Asthana

Issues for consideration
 Whether the appointment on a higher post
(than the post given) on compassionate
grounds, can be said to be in violation of the
Rules?

Headnotes
A.
Service
Law
-
Compassionate
appointment is an exception to the rule of
equality in public employment and the
appointment is only to be made in
accordance with the rules which in fact
has been done in the instant case. (Para
26)

On account of death of petitioner's father he
had been appointed on compassionate grounds
as seasonal clerk vide order dated 17.1.1987.
The petitioner finding himself qualified for a
higher post i.e. Assistant Accountant / Clerk
sent an application for being appointed on the
said post. The application was forwarded by the
Society wherein it was clearly indicated that the
petitioner was working on a seasonal post and
that he has moved an application for being
appointed as per his qualification on a higher
post. (Para 22)

Vide order dated 21.1.1991 passed by the
respondent no. 2 the petitioner was appointed
on
compassionate
grounds
as
Assistant
Accountant / Clerk in the pay scale of Rs 9501500.
Subsequently
vide
order
dated
14.12.1992 the petitioner was reverted to the
post of seasonal clerk on the ground that (a)
due selection process has not been followed
while appointing him as Assistant Accountant /
Clerk and (b) the petitioner was already working
on compassionate grounds as seasonal clerk
and
consequently
his
appointment
on
compassionate grounds again has been done in
violation of rules and without seeking approval
of the competent authority. The representation
filed by the petitioner against the cancellation
order was also rejected vide order dated
22.6.1993. Being aggrieved the petitioner
challenged the orders dated 14.12.1992 and
22.6.1993 before this Court in the instant
petition. This Court vide order dated 18.8.1993
stayed the operation of the orders dated
14.12.1992 and 22.6.1993 and on the basis of
the said order the petitioner continued to work
as an Assistant Accountant / Clerk and
thereafter retired on attaining the age of
superannuation on 31.5.2021. However the
retiral dues have not been given by the
respondents, either of the post of seasonal clerk
or the post of Assistant Accountant / Clerk.
(Para 23)

B. The application filed by the petitioner was
duly acceded by respondent no. 2 and the
petitioner
was
appointed
as
Assistant
Accountant / Clerk vide order dated 21.1.1991.
The petitioner, after his appointment, continued
to work on the higher post and thereafter
retired on attaining the age of superannuation
while working on the said post. It is not the
case of the respondents that any fraud or
misrepresentation was committed by the
petitioner while seeking his appointment
on compassionate grounds on a higher
post. (Para 25)

C. When he was appointed on a higher post and
the fact that the approval was to be sought