HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 10397 of 2025 Court No. - 8 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. S. B.Pandey, learned Deputy Solicitor General of Indian assisted by Mr. Varun Pandey, learned counsel for opposite parties. 2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 05.06.2025 whereby petitioner's representation for compassionate appointment has been rejected. 3. At the very outset, learned counsel for opposite parties has raised a preliminary objection regarding entertain-ability of this petition in view of the fact that admittedly petitioner's father Late Radhey Shyam Mishra passed away while in harness on 18.02.1999 leaving behind petitioner and other three dependents family members. It is submitted that initially the widow of the deceased had given an application for compassionate appointment which was rejected whereafter the son of petitioner, Anand Kumar Mishra also had given an application for compassionate appointment which too was rejected vide order dated 11.04.2002. The said order was challenged in Writ Petition No.768 (SS) of 2024 which was disposed of vide order dated 12.02.2004 with a direction for reconsideration on representation by speaking order. 4. In pursuance thereof, the representation was again rejected vide order dated 06.05.2004 which was challenged before Central Administrative Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Saima Khan, Abhisek Kumar Dixit, Saniya Counsel for Respondent(s) : A.S.G.I. Sudheer Kumar Mishra .....Petitioner(s) Union Of India Thru. Secy. Mini. Of Min. Geo. Survey Of India New Delhi And Another .....Respondent(s) Tribunal in OA No.312 of 2004 which was allowed vide order dated 20.04.2012 primarily on the ground that the order was cryptic in nature. The matter was therefore remanded for consideration afresh. It is submitted that in pursuance thereof, the representation was again rejected on 22.05.2012 primarily on the ground that the family of deceased employee had received death benefits amounting to Rs.2,50,277/- besides family pension of Rs.3535/- per month which kept increasing from time to time due to grant of dearness relief. The order also indicates that the family is also having substantial agricultural property. 5. It is submitted that the aforesaid rejection order dated 22.05.2012 was never challenged by the family members of deceased and the present petition has been filed after almost 26 years which is highly belated and for which no cogent explanation has been furnished. 6. In response thereto, learned counsel for petitioner submits that the petitioner being a family member of deceased employee, has a vested independent right of raising his grievance with regard to compassionate appointment. 7. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, the fact as indicated hereinabove are undisputed. It is therefore evident that petitioner's brother had already raised grievance with regard to compassionate appointment which was ultimately rejected vide order dated 22.05.2012. There does not appears to be any material on record indicating that the said order was ever challenged by petitioner's brother who also subsequently passed away in the year 2017 as submitted by learned counsel for petitioner. 8. It is also evident from record that petitioner's father passed away in harness in the year 1999. This petition therefore is highly belated by 26 years no cogent explanation being furnished. 9. It is trite that compassionate appointment is granted to tide over immediate financial distress of a family and is not meant to be alternative source of employment. 10. The said aspect has also been considered by Hon'ble the Supreme WRIA No. 10397 of 2025 2 Court in the case of State of West Bengal versus Debabrata Tiwari and Ors. reported in (2025) 5 SCC 712 in the following manner:- "44. As noted in Malaya Nanda Sethy case [Malaya Nanda Sethy v. State of Orissa, (2024) 15 SCC 766 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 684] , the operation of a policy/scheme for compassionate appointment is founded on considerations of immediacy. A sense of immediacy is called for not only in the manner in which the applications are processed by the authorities concerned but also in the conduct of the applicant in pursuing his case, before the authorities and if needed before the courts. 45. In the present case, the applications for compassionate appointment were made by the respondent-writ petitioners in the year 2005-2006. Admittedly, the first concrete step taken by the Chairman of Burdwan Municipality was in the year 2013, when the said authority forwarded a list of candidates to be approved by the Director of Local Bodies, Burdwan Municipality. The respondent-writ petitioners knocked on the doors of the High Court of Calcutta only in the year 2015 i.e. after a lapse of nearly ten years from the date of making the application for compassionate appointment. The respondent-writ petitioners were not prudent enough to approach the courts sooner, claiming that no concrete step had been taken by the appellant State in furtherance of the application by seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus. 46. The sense of immediacy in the matter of compassionate appointment has been lost in the present case. This is attributable to the authorities of the appellant State as well as the respondent-writ petitioners. Now, entertaining a claim which was made in 2005-2006, in the year 2023, would be of no avail, because admittedly, the respondent-writ petitioners have been able to eke out a living even though they did not successfully get appointed to the services of the Municipality on compassionate grounds. Hence, we think that this are therefore not fit cases to direct that the claim of the respondent-writ petitioners for appointments on compassionate grounds, be considered or entertained." 11. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any good ground to grant indulgence. Petition therefore is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own costs. September 9, 2025 Subodh/- WRIA No. 10397 of 2025 3 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench