Compassionate appointments are aimed at immediate relief; however, delays of over 20 years invalidate claims, as the immediate crisis loses its significance.

JUDGMENT :

Alok Mahra, J.

1. The present Special Appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment and order dated 27.03.2018 passed in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 359 of 2010.

2. The facts of the case are that sister of the writ petitioner (respondent herein) was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher, Primary School vide order dated 02.11.2001 by the District Education Officer (Basic), Udham Singh Nagar and was posted in Primary School, Kanori (Bajpur). These schools were run by the Basic Shiksha Parishad, Uttarakhand. She died in harness on 05.06.2005. At the time of her death, she was unmarried. Petitioner/respondent, who was unemployed real brother of the deceased, applied for appointment under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (as applicable in Uttarakhand) (for short “the 1974 Rules”). The application of the petitioner/respondent for appointment in Dying in Harness Rules was rejected vide order dated 30.07.2008 on the ground that as per Government Order dated 08.04.2008, brother is not included in the definition of dependents. Aggrieved by the rejection order, petitioner/respondent preferred the instant writ petition, praying for the following reliefs:-

“1. A writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned clause 2 (cha) of the impugned GO dated 08.04.2008 (Annexure-5) by declaring it as illegal/ultra virus to the extent it does not includes “Dependent Brother”.

2. A writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari to quash the impugned rejection order dated 30.07.2008 (Annexure-4).”

3. After exchange of pleadings, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and held that the Government Order dated 08.04.2008 would apply prospectively and the case of the petitioner should have been considered as per Government Order dated 08.10.2004, where unmarried brother was included in the definition of dependent. The writ petition was allowed. The impugned order dated 08.04.2008 was quashed and respondents were directed to consider the case of the petitioner/respondent for appointment on compassionate basis.

4. The ground taken in the Special Appeal by the appellant is that the Government Order dated 08.04.2008 was in respect of those employees, in the Basic Shiksha Parishad, who have died in harness between the period from 21.04.2001 to 21.04.2006, as the school run by the Basic Shiksha Parishad in the State of Uttarakhand were provincialized w.e.f. 22.04.2006. On this basis, they have contended that learned Single Judge have erred in holding that the Government Order dated 08.04.2008 would apply prospectively.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant has further argued that since the 1974 Rules would apply to Government Servants and since the sister of the petitioner was serving in the school run by the Basic Shiksha Parishad, therefore, the 1974 Rules are not applicable in the present case. Learned counsel further submits that since, compassionate appointment is not a vested right and the same is relative to the financial condition and hardship faced by the dependents of the deceased government employee as a consequence of his death, a claim for compassionate appointment cannot be granted after lapse of a considerable period of time. It is further argued 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. It is also argued that the object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis due to the death of the b