The authority should not reject an application for compassionate appointment solely on the ground of delay, but should consider each case on its merit, taking into account the financial condition of the deceased family and other relevant factors.

Anil Kumar, J.

1. Heard Sri. Mayankar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. A.N. Trivedi, and Sri Amitabh Rai, learned State Counsel, and perused the record. Undisputed facts of the present case are that one Sri. Shishu Pal Singh was working on the post of Constable/Driver posted under O.P. No. 4/Superintendent of Police, District-Bijnore, died on 30.10.1995 due to injury suffered by him in a terrorist attack.

2. The petitioner/Sri Virendra Pal Singh was minor at the time of death of Sri. Shishu Pal Singh, after attaining the age of majority on 19.03.2008 he immediately submitted an application for considering his case for compassionate appointment, the same has been forwarded by the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Establishment), P.H.Q., Allahabad by letter dated 13.04.2009 (Annexure No. 7) recommending the case of the petitioner for giving compassionate appointment to the State Government after giving relaxation/prescribed period as provided for submitting an application for compassionate appointment under the rules known as the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 1974).

3. In spite of the said facts, the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has not been considered by the opposite party No. 1, so he filed a Writ Petition No. 41862 of 2010 before this Court sitting at Allahabad, disposed of by order dated 21.07.2010 with the following direction

Father of the petitioner died in the year 1995 and the application was made in the year 2008 as provided under the Rules. The limitation for filing an application is five years and according to regulation 5 only the State Government can relax the period but no decision has been taken by the competent authority in spite of the recommendation dated 13.4.2009.

In such circumstances I am of the opinion that this writ petition is disposed of finally with the direction to respondent No. 1 to take appropriate decision on the basis of the recommendation within a period of two months by speaking and reasoned order for relaxation of the period for providing appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Rules to the petitioner.

The writ petition is finally disposed of accordingly.

4. In pursuance of the said direction, the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been considered and rejected as time barred by order dated 17.01.2012 (Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition) passed by opposite party No. 1, on the ground that the petitioner submitted application for compassionate appointment at a belated stage after 13 years from the date of death of his father. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 17 January, 2012 (Annexure No. 1) passed by opposite party No. 1 on the ground that the impugned action on the part of O.P. No. 1 thereby rejecting the case of the petitioner on the ground of delay only is contrary to the mandate/provisions as provided under Rule 1974 for giving compassionate appointment. Moreso, in the present case, when an application moved by the petitioner for giving compassionate appointment immediately after attaining the age of majority on 19.03.2008 duly recommended and forwarded by the O.P. No. 3 by letter dated 13.04.2009 inter alia stating therein that the deceased family is getting only Rs. 3600/- per month as family pension and there is no other source to earn the livelihood, so the case of the petitioner may be considered for compassionate appointment after giving relaxation to the period provided for making application for compassionate appointment under U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. So, on the said financial condition of the family of the deceased opposite party No. 1 should have condoned the delay and considered the case of the petitioner on merit for giving compassionate appointment. As the said exercise has not been done in the present case