HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 10108 of 2025 Court No. - 8 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties. 2. Petition has been filed seeking a direction to concerned authority to provide compassionate appointment to petitioner in terms of Uttar Pradesh of Dependents of Government Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974. 3. Mr. Manish Pratap Singh, learned State Counsel has raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of this petition in view of the fact that even as per submissions made in the petition itself, petitioner's father late Ramswroop passed away in harness on 27.10.1989 whereafter petitioner's mother also passed in harness on 06.02.1998. It is submitted that the petition, therefore, is highly belated since even as per admission of petitioner himself, he attained majority in the year 2002 and the first application has been filed only in the year 2017. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner in rebuttal submits that at the time of demise of petitioner's father and mother, he was minor and therefore, made the application in view of financial distress being faced by his family. 5. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is admitted in paragraph-8 of the writ petition that petitioner was a minor at the time of demise of his mother in 1998. It is also indicated in paragraph-9 thereof that as on 27.10.1989, petitioner was five years old. It ,therefore, implies that he attained finality in the year 2002. It is, however, also evident that first application for Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Rajesh Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Robin Kumar .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) compassionate appointment has been made only in the year 2017. 6. It is settled law that compassionate appointment is provided to the family members of a deceased employee to tide over immediate financial distress and cannot be a mode of alternative employment. 7. In the present facts and circumstances of the case, the claim made by petitioner is highly belated and no cogent explanation has been furnished as to why such an application could not have been made in the year 2002 or immediately thereafter when petitioner had attained majority. 8. In view thereof, petition being devoid of merit is dismissed. Parties to bear their own cost. September 3, 2025 Satish WRIA No. 10108 of 2025 2 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- SATISH KUMAR BHARATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench