Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:9922 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7346 of 2019 Petitioner :- Sumit Awasthi Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. Basic Edu. Lucknow And Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Prem Shanker,Neeraj Kumar Rai,Piyush Kumar Singh,Purusottam Awasthi,Shachindra Pratap Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Abhinav Singh,Rajiv Singh Chauhan,Abhinav Singh Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J. 1. Heard. 2. Under challenge is the order dated 12.06.2018, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, whereby the claim of the petitioner along with several other persons has been rejected on the ground of the application for compassionate appointment having been filed after 5 years from the date of death of the government employee and that in the application which had been filed it has not been indicated as to why other persons who were eligible did not apply for compassionate appointment. Also under challenge is the order dated 07.07.2018, a copy of which is Annexure-2 to the petition, whereby order dated 12.06.1018 has been communicated to the petitioner. 3. Bereft of unnecessary details facts of the case are that the petitioner's father, who was working as a Class IV employee, died in harness on 23.03.2012 when the petitioner was a minor aged about 12 years and 9 months, his date of birth being 25.05.1999. It is also contended that the mother of the petitioner had predeceased his father having died on 17.03.2012 as per the specific averment made in para 4 of the writ petition as corrected in para 3 of the rejoinder affidavit. After death of his parents, the only legal heirs left in the family were the petitioner and his younger brother, which would be apparent from perusal of the Succession Certificate issued by the office of the District Magistrate, Unnao a copy of which is Annexure-3 to the petition. 4. It is contended that after the petitioner attained majority in May, 2017, he applied for compassionate appointment through an application dated 15.09.2017, which has been rejected vide order impugned dated 12.06.2018. The application has been rejected along with the application of several other persons whereby considering the time limit of 5 years for preferring an application as specified in The U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 1974') and the State Government having refused to relax the time limit. 5. Said order has been communicated through the order dated 07.07.2018. 6. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that approximately 37 cases have been mentioned in the impugned order dated 12.06.2018 which have been clubbed together and rejected by means of the common order and no consideration has been given to in the application that had been filed by the petitioner indicating difficulties for which a period of 5 years could be relaxed. 7. The argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that aforesaid order reflects patent non application of mind taking into consideration the facts of the instant case inasmuch as after death of his father and petitioner's mother having predeceased his father, there was no one else in the family apart from the petitioner and his younger brother, who could have applied for compassionate appointment and the petitioner having applied for compassionate appointment on attaining majority in the year 2017, which all would be extenuating circumstances and factors which should have been considered by the respondents while considering the application for extension of time limit for compassionate appointment instead of having rejected the application by means of a cryptic order. 8. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel on the basis of averments made in the counter affidavit more particularly Government Order dated 04.05.2000, a copy of which is Annexure-CA-1 to the counter affidavit, argues that in terms of Rules, 1974 period of 5 years is given during which an application for compassionate appointment can be entertained and beyond that it is the discretion of the State Government to consider the extenuating circumstances and factors to see as to why the application for compassionate appointment could not be made within aforesaid period of 5 years and to extend the time beyond 5 years in case any good ground is made out. It is contended that as the petitioner failed to indicate any extenuating circumstances for which his application for compassionate appointment could have been entertained beyond 5 years, consequently the impugned order has been passed. 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 10. From perusal of the record, it emerges that the petitioner's father, who was an employee of the respondents, died in harness on 23.03.2012. The petitioner's mother had predeceased his father having died on 17.03.2022. After the death of his parents only the petitioner and his younger brother were left as legal heirs which is prima facie apparent from perusal of the succession certificate issued by the office of District Magistrate, Unnao. The petitioner claims to have applied for compassionate appointment on attaining majority through his application dated 15.09.2017 having attained majority in May, 2017, his date of birth being 25.05.1999. 11. Claim of the petitioner along with several others has been rejected vide order impugned dated 12.06.2018 indicating that no extenuating circumstances have been shown as to why the application for compassionate appointment was not made within 5 years of the death of the employee and no extenuating circumstances and the factors have been indicated for extension of period of 5 years. 12. The extenuating circumstances as have been indicated in the writ petition themselves prima facie make out a case as to why the petitioner did not apply within a period of 5 years from the death of his father, he being minor at the time of death of his father and there being no one else in the family who could have applied for compassionate appointment in the family as the petitioner was elder, yet a minor and his younger brother being the only other surviving member of the family. 13. 13. This aspect of the matter has been considered by a Full Bench of this Court in the case Shiv Kumar Dubey & Ors vs State of U.P. & Ors 2014 2 ADJ 312. 14. Considering the aforesaid, the order impugned dated 12.06.2018, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition, along with the communication letter dated 07.07.2018, a copy of which is Annexure- 2 to the petition, so far as it pertains to the petitioner, is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. 15. It would be open for the petitioner to apply before the respondent No.1 in pursuance of the Government Order dated 04.09.2000 praying for extension of the time period beyond 5 years as provided under the Rules, 1974 for consideration of his claim for compassionate appointment. In case any such application is moved, the competent authority i.e. respondent No.1 shall proceed to consider the same in accordance with law under relevant rules which consideration should be made within a period of 6 weeks from the date said application is filed along with a certified copy of this order. Order Date :- 14.2.2025 prateek Digitally signed by :- PRATEEK ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench