HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 14881 of 2021 Court No. - 32 HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM SHAMSHERY, J. 1. Heard Sri Kaushal Kishor, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Manish Goyal, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms.Divya Chauhan, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. In the present case following facts are not under much dispute that father of petitioner died in harness while working on the post of Development Officer at the office of respondent no.4 on 13.11.2013. 3. Mother of petitioner submitted an application on 7.12.2013 before Branch Manager, LIC of India, Banda that his son (petitioner) aged about 16 years be considered for compassionate appointment after granting relaxation in age. 4. Admittedly, petitioner has two elder sisters and according to subsequent letter dated 28.10.2016 mother of petitioner has declared that her elder daughter got married on 1.7.2009, whereas her younger daughter got married on 7.7.2016. Respondents have not much responded to the letter dated 7.12.2013, where reference was made only in regard to petitioner being minor. 5. Petitioner’s mother remained silent on claim for compassionate appointment for her daughter and son, though for other claims she has made further attempts so much as that she submitted an application for family pension in prescribed format on 7.2.2014, wherein she has declared that she has one daughter and one son. At this stage also, no reference was made as to whether her daughter was married earlier or not and accordingly family pension was fixed on a higher side. 6. Petitioner’s mother remained silent for about 3 years and vide a letter Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Kaushal Kishor, Mohan Yadav, Shiv Badan Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I., Siddharth Singhal Shivanshu Dhuriya .....Petitioner(s) Union Of India And 4 Others .....Respondent(s) dated 21.9.2016, she claimed that her son i.e. petitioner, who has become major be granted compassionate appointment. In the said letter for the first time it was disclosed that her second daughter was also got married. 7. In the aforesaid circumstances, claim of the petitioner was considered for compassionate appointment, however her claim was rejected vide an order dated 4.11.2016 in terms of clause 21 of Instructions of 1993 and relevant being Clause No. XXI (V) (a) (b) and (c) are reproduced hereinafter: " (v) The relaxations shall be admissible only if a request is received from the relative who satisfies the conditions of minimum educational qualifications, age, etc., as prescribed, within a period of one year from the date of death of the employee or early retirement as specified. Provided that the time limit of one year may be extended in the cases specified below a) A widow may be allowed upto 5 years from the date of death of her husband to secure the prescribed qualification for appointment to Class III post in the Corporation, b) A major son or unmarried daughter who satisfies the qualification for appointment to Class IV post, may be allowed upto two years from the date of death to secure prescribed qualification for a Class III post if he/she so desires, c) Upto three years from the date of death where all the children are minor. " 8. The petitioner thereafter approached higher authorities, however, her request was rejected firstly by Senior Divisional Manager vide an order dated 4.11.2016 and subsequently vide an order dated 26.11.2019 that he was not entitled for compassionate appointment. 9. The petitioner again approached Pradeshik Prabandhak for similar relief however, claim was again rejected vide an order dated 22.12.2020 and 20.7.2021 by the said authority. 10. Now being aggrieved by aforesaid orders, the petitioner has filed present Writ Petition against orders dated 4.11.2016, 22.12.2020 and 20.7.2021. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that younger sister of the WRIA No. 14881 of 2021 2 petitioner was married much earlier but ceremony of her Gauna took place in the year 2016, however, Court finds that no such averment is neither made in the writ petition nor in any document or application submitted before the respondents. He further submits that as soon as petitioner became major, he approached the concerned respondent however, his claim was erroneously rejected. 12.Learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on a judgement passed by High Court of Andhra Pradesh in A.Seshagiri Vs. Life Insurance Company of India, 1991 LawSuit (AP) 3432 and he refers Clause 21 (v) of Instructions that relaxation could be extended. 13. Per Contra, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents refers counter affidavit that some crucial facts were not mentioned in the writ petition such as petitioner’s mother has herself informed respondents vide letter dated 28.10.2016 that her second daughter was married on 7.7.2016, therefore, she was eligible for compassionate appointment when her father died in harness, however, she has neither approached concern respondent nor made any request that in her place, her brother be appointed after he became major. 14. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of respondents has placed reliance on judgments passed by Supreme Court in Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Asha Ramchhandra Ambekar (Mrs) and Anr. (1994) 2 SCC 718, Commissioner of Public Instructions & Anr Vs. K.R.Vishwanath (2005) 7 SCC 206 and Sudhir Kumar Consul Vs. Allahabad Bank (2011) 3 SCC 486. 15. In above factual circumstances, when the petitioner’s mother was not bonafide, since she has not disclosed correct facts and at one hand she has declared that her younger daughter was unmarried for the purpose of determination of family pension and on other hand she has declared that her younger daughter was married earlier and her Gauna took place in the year 2016, so that present petitioner be appointed on compassionate basis after more than 3 years, such contrary plea are not accepted. 16. 16. Once unmarried daughter has not come forward at relevant time to either appoint her or with a request to wait till her brother i.e. petitioner became major, therefore, now he could be granted appointment on compassionate ground only in terms of instructions and condition of relaxation referred above that he can claim it even after 3 years only when WRIA No. 14881 of 2021 3 all three child were minor at the time of death of employee whereas admittedly in present case, one unmarried daughter was major when her father died and she could have claimed compassionate appointment at relevant time. 17. In the above background, an argument that if unmarried daughter got compassionate appointment and later on she got married and, therefore, will not support her family, cannot be accepted since at the time of compassionate appointment, beneficiary has to give an undertaking that he or she will look after his or her family, therefore, considering the judgement placed by learned Senior Counsel for the respondents no direction can be passed to consider the prayer for compassionate appointment contrary to prevailing instructions without taking note of limitation period as well as conditions for relaxation, therefore, Court is of the view that no case for interference is made out. 18. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. April 1, 2026 SB WRIA No. 14881 of 2021 4 (Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.) Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad