# Sudeep Kumar Yadav v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 2 ILRA 934
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-01-17
- **Case number:** Writ - A No. 21742 of 2023
- **Bench:** Vivek Kumar Birla, Donadi Ramesh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sudeep-kumar-yadav-v-union-of-india-ors-51511
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Law
-
Compassionate
appointment - Financial position of the
family - Relevance - Father was died in
1998 and application for compassionate
appointment was made in 1999 - Earlier,
petitioner's case was considered four
times during 2001-2002, but due to
constraints of inadequate vacancies, the
petitioner could not be appointed -
Entitlement - Tribunal rejected the claim
petition - 25 years was elapsed during the
course - Effect - Held, compassionate
appointment is given only for immediate
unexpected hardship which is faced by the
family by the reason of the death of sole
bread earner - More than 25 years have
elapsed. At this juncture, consideration of
the petitioner's case under compassionate
ground would not be just and reasonable
- Sushma Gosain's case relied upon. (Para
9 and 10)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)

List of cases cited :-

## Text

934 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

18. In the circumstances, this writ
petition succeeds and is allowed. The
impugned order dated 09.10.2023 passed
by the Chief Manager, Human Resource
and
Development,
Circle
Office,
Saharanpur
is
hereby
quashed.
A
mandamus is issued to the Chief Manager,
Human Resource and Development, Circle
Office, Saharanpur to re-determine the
petitioner's entitlement to be appointed a
part-time sweeper on the basis of select-list
dated 25.02.2022, and appoint him if found
to
be
the
holder
of
educational
qualifications not above a matriculate. This
order shall be carried out by the respondent
Bank within a month of its receipt.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 934
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.01.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.
THE HON'BLE DONADI RAMESH, J.

Writ - A No. 21742 of 2023

Sudeep Kumar Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Vimal Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I.

A.
Service
Law
-
Compassionate
appointment - Financial position of the
family - Relevance - Father was died in
1998 and application for compassionate
appointment was made in 1999 - Earlier,
petitioner's case was considered four
times during 2001-2002, but due to
constraints of inadequate vacancies, the
petitioner could not be appointed -
Entitlement - Tribunal rejected the claim
petition - 25 years was elapsed during the
course - Effect - Held, compassionate
appointment is given only for immediate
unexpected hardship which is faced by the
family by the reason of the death of sole
bread earner - More than 25 years have
elapsed. At this juncture, consideration of
the petitioner's case under compassionate
ground would not be just and reasonable
- Sushma Gosain's case relied upon. (Para
9 and 10)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-1)

List of cases cited :-

1. Sushma Gosain Vs U.O.I.; (1989) SCC 468

2. Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs St. of Har.; (1994) 4
SCC 138

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,
J.
&
Hon'ble Donadi Ramesh, J.)

1. Heard Sri Vimal Kumar, learned
counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri
Shashi Prakash Singh, learned Additional
Solicitor General of India assisted by Sri
Gopal Verma, learned counsel for the
respondents and perused the record.

2. The writ petition has been filed
questioning the order dated 23.08.2023
passed by the Central Administrative
Tribunal, Allahabad Bench Allahabad, in
Original Application No.330/01292 of
2019 Sandeep Kumar Yadav Vs. Union of
India
and
orders
dated
20.06.2002,
01.07.2002, 30.09.2003 and 10.09.2019
passed
by
respondent
no.3
and
consequential directions passed by the
Central Administrative Tribunal.

3. Facts of the case is that the father
of the petitioner who was a permanent
vehicle mechanic in 508 Army Base
2 All. Sudeep Kumar Yadav Vs. Union of India & Ors.
935
Workshop, Allahabad Fort, Allahabad died
in harness on 05.12.1998 leaving behind
his wife Leelawati and four daughters and
three sons. Subsequently, the mother of the
petitioner has moved an application to the
Director General, Army Head Quarter,
New Delhi for consideration of the
appointment on compassionate ground to
anyone of the members of the family of the
deceased. Pursuant to the said application,
the Commandant & M.D. 508, Army Base
Workshop, Allahabad Fort Allahabad has
requested the mother of the petitioner for
sending complete documents to register
name of the eldest son Sudeep Kumar
Yadav for employment assistance in the
office. The petitioner has complete all
requisite formalities in compliance of the
letter
dated
26.02.1999
before
third
respondent. Subsequently, third respondent
also made correspondence directing the
petitioner to submit all the relevant
documents. Accordingly, the petitioner
complied with the letter dated 11.12.1999.

4. That being so, the respondents
arbitrarily and illegally without considering
financial condition of the family of the
deceased refused to accept the request and
passed
the
impugned
orders
20.06.2002/01.07.2002. While passing the
said orders, the respondents have not
disclosed details of merit list of all the
candidates considered by the Board during
June 2001, September 2001, December
2001 and March 2002. Hence the petitioner
was not able to know correct position of the
merit list. As against the said order, the
mother of the petitioner has preferred
appeal / representation on 11.12.2002 and
19.12.2002
requesting
for
giving
employment to her son on compassionate
ground. Considering the said request, the
respondents
again
vide
order
dated
30.09.2003 rejected the request of the
petitioner
for
appointment
on
compassionate ground saying that the case
of the petitioner has already been rejected
vide orders dated 20.06.2002 / 01.07.2002.

5. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid
action of the respondents, the petitioner has
moved a civil misc. writ petition no.40017
of 2004 before this Court and challenged
the said rejection orders. The said writ
petition was dismissed on the ground of
alternative
remedy
vide
order
dated
28.09.2018.

6. After that, the petitioner has
received one more letter dated 14.11.2018
from
third
respondent
whereby
he
demanded
certain
documents
for
consideration
of
his
appointment
on
compassionate ground and the petitioner
has submitted further documents in support
of the request made by third respondent
vide letter dated 20.12.2018. The petitioner
has
further
received
a
letter
dated
27.03.2019 whereby he was directed to
complete certain formality for sending the
matter to the Army Head Quarter and
further the petitioner received a letter from
third respondent on 10.09.2019 whereby
the
Board
of
Officers
as
per
the
guidelines/instructions
issued
by
the
Government of India has examined the case
of the petitioner and found that due to
constraints of inadequate vacancies
and also due to not make up in
relative merit against the ceiling of
5% quota, the petitioner has not been
selected. Consequently, left with no
option, the petitioner approached the
Central
Administrative
Tribunal,
Allahabad
Bench
Allahabad
questioning the orders passed by the
respondents rejecting the case of the
petitioner
for
compassionate
appointment.
936 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
7. After completing the pleadings,
the Tribunal has considered the original
application filed by the petitioner. Though
the case of the petitioner was considered by
the respondents five times but no details of
the candidates who were selected in those
Board meeting has been given and the
respondents
failed
to
consider
the
petitioner's application and based on
financial income of the deceased in
prospective manner, the Tribunal also
rejected the petitioner's application for
compassionate ground.

8. Refuting the submissions, learned
counsel for the respondents has submitted
that the petitioner's case was considered on
four times June 2001, September 2001,
December 2001 and March 2002, due to
constraints of inadequate vacancies, the
petitioner could not be appointed and his
name was deleted from the names of the
aggrieved persons for further consideration.
Despite the same, the respondents have
considered once again the candidature of
the petitioner in 2019 but he could not be
appointed on the ground of inadequate
vacancies. Further he has argued that the
matter is very old and the deceased
employee had died in 1998 and more than
25 years have elapsed. Hence, at this
juncture, the question of consideration of
the compassionate appointment would not
arise in view of ratio laid down by Hon'ble
Apex Court in the various judgments. The
said legal position has been extracted by
the Tribunal in its order in paragraph nos.
7, 8 and 10 of the said judgment, which are
reproduced herein under:-

"7. Before proceeding to discuss
the submissions raised across the bar and
analyzing the same in the light of the facts
and circumstances of the case, I find it
expedient to quote the relevant portion of
the
judgments
relied
upon
by
the
applicant:-

Relevant portion of judgment of
Smt. Parden Oraon (supra)

"9. We are in agreement with the
High Court that the reasons given by the
employer
for
denying
compassionate
appointment to the Respondent's son are
not justified. There is no bar in the
National
Coal
Wage
Agreement
for
appointment of the son of an employee who
has suffered civil death. In addition, merely
because the respondent is working, her son
cannot
be
denied
compassionate
appointment as per the relevant clauses of
the
National
CoalWage
Agreement.
However, the Respondent's husband is
missing since 2002. Two sons of the
Respondent who are the dependents of her
husband as per the records, are also shown
as dependents of the Respondent. It cannot
be said that Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State
of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138 7 Page
there was any financial crisis created
immediately after Respondent's husband
went missing in view of the employment of
the Respondent. Though the reasons given
by the employer to deny the relief sought by
the Respondent are not sustainable, we are
convinced that the Respondent's son cannot
be given compassionate appointment at this
point
of
time.
The
application
for
compassionate appointment of the son was
filed by the Respondent in the year 2013
which is more than 10 years after the
Respondent's husband had gone missing.
As
the
object
of
compassionate
appointment is for providing immediate
succour to the family of a deceased
employee, the Respondent's son is not
entitled for compassionate appointment
after the passage of a long period of time
since his father has gone missing".
2 All. Sudeep Kumar Yadav Vs. Union of India & Ors.
937

Relevant portion of judgment of
Smt. Phulmati Devi (supra)

"25. In view of this court, the
aforesaid argument cannot be accepted.
The revised consolidated instruction on the
scheme of compassionate appointment
circulated by G.I. Department of Personnel
and Training OM dated 09.10.1998 is
relevant for this purpose. In Rules-7 and 8,
it is mentioned that:-

7. Determination/Availability of
Vacancies

(a)
Appointment
on
compassionate grounds should be made
only on regular basis and that too only if
regular vacancies meant for that purpose
are available.

(b) Compassionate appointments
can be made upto a maximum of 5% of
vacancies falling under direct recruitment
quota in any Group 'C' or 'D' post. The
appointing authority may hold back upto
5% of vacancies in the aforesaid categories
to be filled by direct recruitment through
Staff Selection Commission or otherwise so
as to fill such vacancies by appointment on
compassionate grounds. A person selected
for appointment on compassionate grounds
should be adjusted in the recruitment roster
against the appropriate category viz SC/ST/
OBC/General depending upon the category
to which he belongs. For example, if he
belongs to SC category he will be adjusted
against the SC reservation point, if he will
be adjusted against ST/OBC point and if he
belongs to General category he will be
adjusted against the vacancy point meant
for General category.

(c) While the ceiling of 5%, for
making compassionate appointment against
regular
vacancies
should
not
be
circumvented by making appointment of
dependent family member of Government
servant
on
casual/daily
wage/adhoc/contract
basis
against
regular
vacancies, there is no bar to considering
him for such appointment if he is eligible as
per the normal rules/orders governing such
appointments.

(d) The ceiling of 5% of direct
recruitment
vacancies
for
making
compassionate appointment should not be
exceeded by utilising any other vacancy
e.g., sports quota vacancy.

(e) Employment under the scheme
is
not
confined
to
the
Ministry/
Department/Office
in
which
deceased/medically
retired
Government
servant had been working. Such an
appointment can be given anywhere under
the Government of India depending upon
availability of a suitable vacancy meant for
the purpose of compassionate appointment.

(f) If sufficient vacancies are not
available in any particular 'office to
accommodate the persons in the 'Waiting
list for compassionate appointment, it is
open
to
the
administrative
Ministry/Department/Office to take up the
matter
with
other
Ministries/Departments/Offices
of
the
Government of India to provide at an early
date
appointment
on
compassionate
grounds to those in the waiting list.

8.
Belated
requests
for
Compassionate
Appointment
(a)
Ministries/Departments
can
consider
requests for compassionate appointment
even where the death or retirement on
medical grounds of a Government servant
took. place long back, say five years or so.
While considering such belated requests it
should, however, be kept in view that the
concept of compassionate appointment is
largely related to the need for immediate
assistance to the family of the Government
servant in order to relieve it from economic
distress. The very fact that the family has
been able to manage somehow all these
938 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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. The decision to make
appointment on compassionate grounds in
such cases may, therefore, be taken only at
the
level
of
the
Secretary
of
the
Department/Ministry concerned.

(b)
Whether
a
request
for
compassionate appointment is belated or
not may be decided with reference to the
date of death or retirement on medical
ground of a Government servant and not
the age of the applicant at the time of
consideration.

26. For the same purpose, OM
No.14014/19/2002 dated 05.05.2003 is also
relevant, which says:-

"Copy of O.M.No.14014/19/2002Estt(D) dated 5.5.2003 from Ministry of
Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions
Department of Personnel &Training

Subject: Time-limit for making
compassionate appointment.

1. The undersigned is directed to
refer to Department of Personnel &
Training OM No.14014/6/94-Estt(D) dated
October 9, 1998 and OM No.14014/23/99-
Estt(D) dated December 3, 1999 on the
above subject and to say that the question
of prescribing a time limit for making
appointment on compassionate grounds
has been examined in the light of
representations received, stating that the
one year limit prescribed for grant of
compassionate
appointment is often
resulting in depriving genuine cases
seeking compassionate appointments, on
account of regular vacancies not being
available, within the prescribed period
of one year and within the prescribed
ceiling of 5% of direct recruitment
quota.

2. It has therefore been decided
that if compassionate appointments to
genuine and deserving cases, as per the
guidelines contained in the above OMs is
not possible in the first year due to nonavailability
of
regular
vacancy,
the
prescribed committee may review such
cases to evaluate the financial conditions of
the family to arrive at a decision as to
whether
a
particular
case
warrants
extension
by
one
more
year,
for
consideration
for
compassionate
appointment by the Committee, subject to
availability of a clear vacancy within the
prescribed 5% quota. If on scrutiny by the
Committee, a case is considered to be
deserving, the name of such a person can
be continued for consideration for one
more year.

3. The maximum time a person's
name can be kept under consideration for
offering Compassionate appointment will
be three years, subject to the condition that
the prescribed Committee has reviewed and
certified the penurious condition of the
applicant at the end of the first and the
second
year.
After
three
years,
if
compassionate appointment is not possible
to be offered to the applicant, his case will
be finally closed, and will not be
considered again.

4. The instructions contained in
the above-mentioned OMs stand modified
to the extent mentioned above.

5. The above decision may be
brought to the notice of all concerned for
information,
guidance
and
necessary
action".

27. Therefore, looking to the
aforesaid provision and the rules, it
appears that the claim of the applicant was
required to be considered for the vacancies
of three years. Nowhere it is provided that
the vacancy should arise only after the
death of the deceased employee. The
2 All. Sudeep Kumar Yadav Vs. Union of India & Ors.
939
vacancies may be carried forward for three
years. If the vacancies are available (5%
for compassionate appointment) then the
selection for the aforesaid vacancies should
be made in chronological order. At the time
of consideration of the application, the
vacancies available should be filled. It is
not relevant that the vacancies are related
to which year. The oldest vacancies should
be filled on a priority basis. Therefore, the
case of the applicant has rightly been
considered for the vacancies related to
three years and was available at the time of
consideration of the application.

28. In the aforesaid situation, in
view of this court the OA is liable to be
dismissed. The respondents rightly rejected
the claim of the applicant. Hence, OA is
dismissed".

8. As per dictums of Hon'ble Apex
Court, it is settled position of law that
compassionate appointment is granted to
meet the sudden crisis on account of death
of breadwinner while in service. While
considering the claim for compassionate
appointment, financial condition of family
of deceased employee must be taken into
consideration.
The
object
to
grant
compassionate appointment is to provide
immediate help to the dependents of
deceased employee, so that they may not
die in starvation.

10. Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of State of West Bengal Vs.
Debabrata Tiwari and Ors. Etc. etc. in
Civil Appeal No. 8842-8855 of 2022
decided on 3.3.2023 in paras 7.1 and
7.2 has held as under:-

"7.1. It may be apposite to
refer to the following decisions of this
Court, on the rationale behind a policy
or
scheme
for
compassionate
appointment and the considerations that
ought to guide determination of claims
for compassionate appointment.

i. In Sushma Gosain vs. Union of
India, (1989) 4 SCC 468, this Court
observed that in all claims for appointment
on compassionate grounds, there should
not be any delay in appointment. 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.
Such
appointment should, therefore, be provided
immediately to redeem the family in
distress.

ii. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs.
State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138, this
Court observed that the object of granting
compassionate employment is to enable the
family of a deceased government employee
to tide over the sudden crisis by providing
gainful
employment
to
one
of
the
dependants of the deceased who is eligible
for such employment. That mere death of
an employee in harness does not entitle his
family to such source of livelihood; the
Government
or
the
public
authority
concerned has to examine the financial
condition of the family of the deceased and
it is only if it is satisfied that, but for the
provision of employment, the family will
not be able to meet the crisis, that a job is
to be offered to the eligible member of the
family, provided a scheme or rules provide
for the same. This Court further clarified in
the
said
case
that
compassionate
appointment is not a vested right which can
be exercised at any time after the death of a
government servant.

That the object being to enable
the family to get over the financial crisis
which it faces at the time of the death of the
sole
breadwinner,
compassionate
employment cannot be claimed and offered
after lapse of considerable amount of time
and after the crisis is overcome.

iii. In Haryana State Electricity
Board vs. Hakim Singh, (1997) 8 SCC 85,
940 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
("Hakim Singh") this Court placed much
emphasis on the need for immediacy in the
manner in which claims for compassionate
appointment are made by the dependants
and decided by the concerned authority.
This Court cautioned that it should not be
forgotten that the object of compassionate
appointment is to give succour to the family
to tide over the sudden financial crisis that
has befallen the dependants on account of
the untimely demise of its sole earning
member. Therefore, this Court held that it
would
not
be
justified
in
directing
appointment for the claimants therein on
compassionate grounds, fourteen years
after the death of the government employee.
That such a direction would amount to
treating
a
claim
for
compassionate
appointment as though it were a matter of
inheritance based on a line of succession.

iv. This Court in State of Haryana
vs. Ankur Gupta, AIR 2003 SC 3797 held
that in order for a claim for compassionate
appointment to be considered reasonable
and permissible, it must be shown that a
sudden crisis occurred in the family of the
deceased as a result of death of an
employee who had served the State and
died while in service. It was further
observed
that
appointment
on
compassionate grounds cannot be claimed
as a matter of right and cannot be made
available to all types of posts irrespective
of the nature of service rendered by the
deceased employee.

v. There is a consistent line of
authority of this Court on the principle that
appointment on compassionate grounds is
given only for meeting the immediate
unexpected hardship which is faced by the
family by reason of the death of the bread
earner vide Jagdish Prasad vs. State of
Bihar, (1996) 1 SCC 301. When an
appointment is made on compassionate
grounds, it should be kept confined only to
the purpose it seeks to achieve, the idea 19
being
not
to
provide
for
endless
compassion,
vide
I.G.
(Karmik)
vs.
Prahalad Mani Tripathi, (2007) 6 SCC
162. In the same vein is the decision of this
Court in Mumtaz Yunus Mulani vs. State of
Maharashtra, (2008) 11 SCC 384, wherein
it was declared that appointment on
compassionate grounds is not a source of
recruitment, but a means to enable the
family of the deceased to get over a sudden
financial crisis.

vi. In State of Jammu and
Kashmir vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir, AIR 2006
SC 2743, the facts before this Court were
that the government employee (father of the
applicant therein) died in March, 1987.
The 6 application was made by the
applicant after four and half years in
September, 1991 which was rejected in
March, 1996. The writ petition was filed in
June, 1999 which was dismissed by the
learned Single Judge in July, 2000. When
the Division Bench decided the matter,
more than fifteen years had passed from the
date of death of the father of the applicant.
This Court remarked that the said facts
were relevant and material as they would
demonstrate that the family survived in
spite of death of the employee. Therefore,
this
Court
held
that
granting
compassionate appointment after a lapse of
a considerable amount of time after the
death of the government employee, would
not be in furtherance of the object of a
scheme for compassionate appointment.

vii. In Shashi Kumar, this Court
speaking through Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.
(as His Lordship then was) observed that
compassionate appointment is an exception
to the general rule that appointment to any
public post in the service of the State has to
be made on the basis of principles which
accord with Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution. That the basis of the policy is
2 All. Sudeep Kumar Yadav Vs. Union of India & Ors.
941
that it recognizes that a family of a
deceased employee may be placed in a
position of financial hardship upon the
untimely death of the employee while in
service. That it is the immediacy of the need
which furnishes the basis for the State to
allow
the
benefit
of
compassionate
appointment. The pertinent observations of
this Court have been extracted as under:

"41. Insofar as the individual
facts pertaining to the Respondent are
concerned, it has emerged from the record
that the Writ Petition before the High Court
was instituted on 11 May 2015. The
application for compassionate appointment
was submitted on 8 May 2007. On 15
January 2008 the Additional Secretary had
required that the amount realized by way of
pension be included in the income
statement of the family. The Respondent
waited thereafter for a period in excess of
seven years to move a petition Under
Article 226 of the Constitution. In Umesh
Kumar Nagpal (supra), this Court has
emphasized that the basis of a scheme of
compassionate appointment lies in the need
of providing immediate assistance to the
family of the deceased employee. This sense
of immediacy is evidently lost by the 7
delay on the part of the dependant in
seeking compassionate appointment."

7.2. On consideration of the
aforesaid decisions of this Court, the
following principles emerge:

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 22 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".

9. While considering the above
observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court
and also the fact that the deceased died in
1998 and 25 years have elapsed, the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sushma
Gosain Vs. Union of India (1989) SCC
468, and Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State
of Haryana (1994) 4 SCC 138 has
categorically held that with regard to the
principle
of
compassionate
grounds,
appointment is given only for immediate
unexpected hardship which is faced by the
family by the reason of the death of sole
bread
earner.
The
provision
for
942 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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.
Further,
it
has
been
observed
that
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.

10. As observed by Hon'ble Apex
Court in the instant case, more than 25
years have elapsed. At this juncture,
consideration of the petitioner's case under
compassionate ground would not be just
and reasonable. Accordingly, the Tribunal
rejected claim of the petitioner in the right
perspective. It is also not in dispute that the
Authority has considered the case of the
petitioner. In fact, the petitioner's case has
been considered by the respondent no.3
nearly five times and he could not be able
to provide employment for want of
inadequate vacancy.

11. In view of the above, we are not
inclined to interfere with the order of the
Tribunal. Accordingly, the writ petition is
dismissed.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 942
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 23.02.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI,
J.
THE HON'BLE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.

Writ - A No. 30173 of 2019
connected with
Writ - A No. 2000845 of 2014
and other connected cases

Harendra Bahadur Singh & Ors.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Varadraj Shreedutt Ojha, Amardeep Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Dharmendra Kumar Dixit, Gaurav
Mehrotra,
Praneet
Kumar
Agarwal,
Shireesh Kumar, Sridhar Awasthi

A. Service Law - UP Higher Judicial
Services Rules, 1975 - Rules 5(a), 6, 7 &
8(1) - Promotion - Post of Higher Judicial
Services cadre - Determination of seats
for each three source of recruitment of the
HJS cadre - Inter-se seniority for the
recruitment year 2012 and 2014 - More
seat for promotion was claimed on the
basis of quota - How far liable to be
accepted - Phrase 'vacancy likely to occur
in next two years' is used in S. 8(1) -
Applicability
-
Held,
the
expression
'vacancies likely to occur in the next two
years' is a concept, which comes into play
only when it is decided for the recruitment
of a particular year to commence in that
year itself. If, the recruitment starts in a
particular year, Rule 8(1) of the UPHJS
Rules,
1975
mandates
that
for
determining the number of vacancies, the
Courts also take into consideration the
anticipated vacancies for the following
year - The vacancy for the recruitment
year 2012 was correctly determined by
the High Court in terms of Rule 8(1) of the
UPHJS Rules, 1975 and there was no
occasion for the High Court to consider
the appointment of the petitioners on the
unforeseen vacancies, which were created
or
came
into
existence
once
the
recruitment process started for the said
year 2012. (Para 3, 37, 38, 39 and 50)

B. Service Law - UP Higher Judicial
Services Rules, 1975 - Rules 7, 8(2) &
22(2) - UP Public Services (Reservation