Compassionate appointment must consider the current financial condition of the bereaved family, not just the employment status of dependents at the time of death.

JUDGMENT :

MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.

1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging an order dated 26.07.2025 passed by respondent no. 3,[Executive Oficer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Farrukhabad] vide which claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected.

2. Placing brief facts of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s father was working as a Safai Karamchari in Nagar Palika Parishad, Farrukhabad since 1991. He died-in-harness on 20.05.2023, leaving behind his wife i.e. the petitioner’s mother and one son i.e. the petitioner, as his legal heirs. The petitioner moved an application for his appointment on compassionate ground, on 11.07.2023. As the petitioner’s father was suffering from a chronic ailment, therefore, his mother who was also working as Safari Karmchari in Gram Panchayat Dilawarpur, had to take leave to take care of her husband. After demise of her husband, when the petitioner’s mother re-joined her services, she was pestered and harassed for her alleged unauthorized absence and was compelled to tender her resignation, which was accepted on 31.05.2025. The matter regarding compassionate appointment of the petitioner was still pending, therefore, he moved an application before the respondent authority on 31.05.2024 mentioning about the financial crisis that arose due to resignation of his mother, however, without considering the said circumstances, the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected by respondent no. 3 in an arbitrary manner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the object and purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide assistance to the bereaved family of the deceased employee, who has suffered a shock and is facing financial crisis due to sudden demise of the sole bread earner. In numerous cases, the Courts have interfered with for creation of posts to meet out the financial crisis of such families and to consider the claim for compassionate appointment. He further submits that the application dated 11.07.2023 was not considered at the relevant point of time and it is after the resignation of petitioner’s mother on 31.05.2025, the claim which was pending consideration, was rejected only on the ground that the petitioner’s mother was a Government Servant, and without considering the current situation/ status of the family pertaining to the financial status and the crisis which they are suffering. Thus, the impugned order is bad, unreasonable and unjustifiable in the eyes of law.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents could not dispute the aforesaid facts.

5. I have heard Sri Sameer Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Anuradha Sundaram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 & 2, Sri Atul Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 3 and perused the record.

6. In the present case, the petitioner’s father passed away while in service in the year 2023. The petitioner moved an application for compassionate appointment on 11.07.2023. Although the petitioner’s mother was employed as a Safai Karamchari at the time of the death of the petitioner’s father, she subsequently tendered her resignation on 31.05.2023. However, the impugned order has been passed sans considering the changed circumstances which were prevailing at the time of consideration by the authority.

7. The principal argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitione