Compassionate appointment claims must be timely; prolonged delays negate the immediate need, despite any fault of authorities.

JUDGMENT :

AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J.

1. Heard Shri Arun Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Badrish Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent Nos.1, 3, Shri Pradeep Tiwari, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and Shri Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.4.

2. The present writ petition has been filed seeking relief for issuance of writ of mandamus directing respondents to appoint petitioner on a suitable post according to her qualification under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules 1974”) on compassionate grounds.

3. The facts which emerge from the record are that the father of the petitioner, namely, late Mahadeo Prasad died on 26.05.1990 while working on the post of Headmaster, Prathmik Vidyalaya, New Hyderabad, Ward Hasanganj, Lucknow. The petitioner, after attaining the age of majority, applied for appointment under Rules, 1974 on compassionate grounds through an application dated 10.10.1993 before the Secretary, Basic Shiksha, Anubhag-5, U.P. Government, Lucknow. Subsequent applications were also moved by the petitioner on 19.10.1993 and 22.11.1993 before Anubhag Adhikari, Shiksha Anubhag-5, U.P. Sachivalaya, Lucknow and District Basic Education Officer, Nagar Mahapalika, Lucknow respectively. The mother of the petitioner also submitted an affidavit dated 21.10.1994 recommending compassionate appointment in favour of the petitioner and the brother of the petitioner also gave a no-objection for providing compassionate appointment to the petitioner.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that despite completion of all formalities, the respondents did not pass any order for providing compassionate appointment to the petitioner. Consequently, petitioner represented the matter before the then Chief Minister of the State of U.P., on which a recommendation was made on 07.11.2002 by the Secretary to the Chief Minister directing the Secretary, Basic Education, Government of U.P. to take necessary action. Subsequently, the Nagar Shiksha Adhikari, Lucknow wrote letter to the Secretary, Basic Education Board, U.P., Allahabad dated 28.03.2003 seeking guidelines for the grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioner. Another letter dated 19.02.2004 was issued by the Joint Secretary, Government of U.P., Shiksha, Anubhag-5 to the Secretary, Basic Shiksha Parishad, U.P., Allahabad for considering the case of petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment.

5. The sum and substance of the aforesaid correspondences is that several representations were moved by the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment and the authorities kept the matter pending while making several inter-departmental correspondences but did not take any decision regarding consideration of the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. Ultimately, the petitioner filed the instant writ petition, in which this Court, vide order dated 27.05.2004, granted four weeks’ time to the counsel for the Basic Shiksha Adhikari to file a counter affidavit. In pursuance of the directions of this Court, the counter affidavit was filed, to which the petitioner also filed a rejoinder affidavit. During the course of the hearing of the present case, it transpires from order sheet that vide order dated 28.08.2006, it was recorded that the counter affidavit is not