Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:64742-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1029 of 2024 Appellant :- Vikas Kumar Respondent :- State Of Up And 5 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Amit Kumar Singh Counsel for Respondent :- Ashish Kumar (Nagvanshi),C.S.C. Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri,J. 1. The claim for compassionate appointment of the present appellant has been rejected by the authorities on the ground that the appellant has sufficient means to sustain himself. This decision has been affirmed by the learned Senior Judge, who has observed as under: "By the impugned order, the application of the petitioner for grant of appointment under the dying in harness rules has been declined. The impugned finds that the family of the deceased employee does not face financial destitution. The family has regular sources of income which includes the pension of his father and the pension of the deceased employee who is the mother of the petitioner. Both the parents of the petitioner were employed in government services. The mother of the petitioner died in harness. As per the impugned order, the family is well to do. The appointment on compassionate grounds are an exception to the general rule of recruitment. The mandatory precondition for grant of compassionate ground appointment is that the claimant should face financial destitution as a result of the death of the employee on whom he/she was dependant. This prerequisite is not satisfied in the facts of this case as noticed above. There is no perversity in the impugned order and it warrants no interference. The writ petition is dismissed. " 2. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the report of the Block Education Officer dated 15.03.2022. According to which, the appellant is in need of employment. 3. From the facts placed on record, it remains undisputed that both the parents of the appellant were in the government service. The father has retired from the Railways while the mother was an Assistant Teacher who has died in harness. The father is getting Rs. 49,749/- as pension for himself and he is also receiving family pension of Rs. 26,000/- on account of death of appellant's mother. The monthly receipt of the father is Rs. 75,749/-. This finding contained in the order of the District Basic Education Officer is not assailed. 3. We find substance in the view taken by the learned Single Judge that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right, and it is only a concession to tide over the sudden crisis resulted due to death of the sole bread earner. In the matters where it is shown that sufficient financial resources are available to the family and for such reason the compassionate appointment is denied, no exception can be taken. 4. The submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that Rule 5 of the U.P. Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 makes no reference to the financial condition of the family as being a ground to non-suit such claim. This submission cannot be accepted. This is so because it is well settled that compassionate appointment is an exception to the normal mode of recruitment. Article 16 of the Constitution of India clearly provides equality in the matter of the grant of public employment. It is otherwise, settled that appointment on account of descent would be hit by Article 16. It is only where the object of the compassionate appointment is shown to exist that the claim for compassionate appointment would be dealt with under the applicable rules. Existence of financial hardship and lack of support of funds for the family are thus sine qua non for a valid claim of compassionate appointment. Once that is not the case, and family has enough means of sustenance, the denial of claim of compassionate appointment would not merit any interference. 5. The appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. Order Date :- 28.4.2025 K.Tiwari Digitally signed by :- KRISHNA KANT TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad