HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI

Writ Petition Service Single No. 2248 of 2024

09 September, 2025

Kuldeep Singh --Petitioner

Versus

Nagar Nigam Haridwar & others. --Respondents ----------------------------------------------------------------------

Mr. Parikshit Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate for respondent nos. 1 & 2.

Mr. Ganesh Dutt Kandpal, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Dinesh Bankoti, Brief

Holder for the State of Uttarakhand / respondent no. 3.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

JUDGMENT

By means of this writ petition, petitioner has

sought the following reliefs:-

“I. Issue a writ, order in the nature of

Certiorari quashing the letter/order dated 08-10- 2024 (Contained as Annexure No. 10 to this Writ Petition) issued by Respondent No. 3 to this Writ

Petition).

II. Issue a writ, order in the nature of

Mandamus directing the Respondent No. 2 and 3 to appoint the Petitioner to the Post of Assistant Teacher Mathematics (L.T. Grade) in Panna Lal

Bhalla Municipal Inter College, Haridwar.”

2. Petitioner is aggrieved by rejection of his claim for appointment as Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade by the Chief Education Officer, Haridwar, vide order dated

08.10.2024.

3. It is not in dispute that petitioner’s father Mr. Harpal Singh served as Assistant Teacher in Panna Lal Bhalla Municipal Inter College, Haridwar, which is a Government Aided Institution and is managed by Municipal Corporation, Haridwar. While in employment, petitioner’s father passed away on 07.12.2021, therefore, his mother made request for giving compassionate appointment to petitioner. In the application made on 30.03.2022, appointment was sought on the post of Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade. The request for compassionate appointment was turned down by Chief Education Officer on the ground that as per the Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 applicable to Government employees, compassionate appointment can be given only on a Group-D post or Group-C post of Junior Assistant and not as teacher. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court.

4. Admittedly, petitioner’s father was serving in a Government Aided Institution and its employees, both teaching and non-teaching, do not have the status of Government employee, therefore, Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 which are applicable only to Government employees are not attracted. The service conditions of teaching and non-teaching employees of Government Aided Schools are governed by Uttarakhand School Education Act and the Regulations framed thereunder.

5. Law is well settled that compassionate appointment is given to a dependent family member of deceased employee to provide financial relief to the family facing destitution on account of death of the breadwinner. The focus is on easing the family’s immediate hardship and not on providing a career to the applicant. It serves as a measure to help the family to get over an emergency and tide over the financial crisis. Offering compassionate appointment is not a matter of course, but depends on the family’s financial condition, upon death of an employee. The purpose of appointment is to help the family to wade through an economic calamity and not to cater to applicant’s dignity or status. If the applicant finds the post beneath his dignity, he is free not to accept it.

6. From the judgments rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court on the issue of compassionate appointment, the following principles emerge; (a) appointment on compassionate grounds is an exception to the general rule that recruitment to public service is to be made in a transparent and accountable manner by providing opportunity to all eligible persons to compete and participate in the selection process; (b) the right of a dependent of an employee, who died in harness for compassionate appointment is based on the scheme, executive instructions, rules etc. framed by the employer and there is no right to claim compassionate app