Compassionate appointments are meant to address immediate financial crises and cannot wait for claimants to attain majority or acquire additional qualifications. Delay in filing applications for compassionate grounds appointment dilutes the case of immediate financial penury and negates the entitlement for appointment on compassionate grounds.

JUDGMENT :

Ajay Bhanot, J.

1. The claim of the petitioner for appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules/Compassionate grounds has been invalidated by order dated 28.10.2014 passed by respondent no. 2, Superintendent Engineer (Electricity)-III, KESCO, Power House, Kanpur on the foot that the application is belated and barred by limitation.

2. Thus aggrieved, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 28.10.2014 passed by respondent no. 2, Superintendent Engineer (Electricity)-III, KESCO, Power House, Kanpur in the instant writ petition.

3. The petitioner has also prayed for the following reliefs in the instant writ petition:

“a. issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 28.10.2014 passed by Superintendent Engineer (Electricity) III, KESCO, Power House Kanpur/respondent no. 2.

b. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the appointment of the petitioner under the provisions of Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.”

4. The order dated 28.10.2014 impugned in the writ petition records that the claim of the petitioner for appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules was made five years after the death of his father. The application was found to be barred by limitation. On this ground, the order dated 28.10.2014 rejected the claim of the petitioner for appointment under the Dying-in-harness Rules as applicable to the respondent Corporation.

5. Sri Anmol Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the claim of the petitioner has wrongly been rejected. He could not be appointed in the respondent Corporation in the immediate aftermath of the death of his father as he was a minor at that point in time. Further, the petitioner had not secured his educational qualifications in the period proximate to the death of his father. The petitioner cannot be penalized for any delay on his part as he made the application for appointment immediately after he passed the High School examination. Moreover, there was an ongoing litigation between competing heirs and successors of late Sri Krishna, after his death. The petitioner approached the authorities after the litigation came to an end.

6. Sri Pawan Kumar Misra, learned counsel holding brief of Sri Pranjal Mehrotra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the claim of the petitioner for the appointment on the compassionate ground has rightly been rejected by the respondent no. 2 on 28.10.2014. He submits that the delay in making the appointment was not liable to be condoned and the family of the petitioner did not face any immediate financial crisis upon the death of his father.

7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.

8. Certain facts relevant for the judgment are established beyond the pale of dispute.

9. The father of the petitioner namely Sri Krishna was an employee of Jajmau Division, Kanpur Electricity Supply Company Ltd. (KESCO), Kanpur (hereinafter referred to as the “Corporation”). He died in harness on 10.07.2002. The petitioner was minor at the time of the death of his father Late Krishna. Petitioner claims he attained majority in the year 2010. The petitioner moved an application on 02.07.2014 for appointment on compassionate grounds i.e. 12 years after the death of his father.

10. One Smt. Bhagwati claimed to be the wife of late Krishna (father of the petitioner). The said Bhagwati and her children asserted themselves as the lawful heirs of the father of the petitioner. The mother of the petitioner contested the said claim of Bhagwati and her children by bringing civil action against them. The mother of the petitioner Smt. Shashi instituted a civil suit registered as Original Suit No. 1063 of 2002, Smt. Shashi Vs. General Manager, KESCO and Others, before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 6, Kanpur Nagar. In the aforesaid suit, the mother of the petitioner claimed to be the lawfully wedded wife of late Krishna. The