Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:56265 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4826 of 2025 Petitioner :- Pooja Yadav Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sr. Advocate,Virendra Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar holding brief of Sri Virendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri M.L.Gupta, learned Standing Counsel. 2. It is not under much dispute that father of the petitioner died in harness on 21.7.2004 and she became major in the year 2017. However, when she was pursuing her graduation, filed an application on 18.4.2017 for compassionate appointment. 3. It has been declared in paragraph no.15 of writ petition that a representation annexed is a true copy, however, it does not bear endorsement of receipt. It is further case of petitioner that after 7 years, awaking from long slumber, she filed another representation on 20.12.2024, which has an endorsement of receiving. No explanation was made therein about delay in approaching the concerned respondent i.e. after 1st application was filed wayback in the year 2017. Even no document was enclosed about financial position of her family and thereafter she again filed a representation on 26.12.2024. This time along with postal receipt, but its track record is not on record. 4. It is well settled that repeated representation will not condone the delay. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed heavy reliance on a judgment passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ-A No.20878 of 2018, Neutral Citation No.2024:AHC:185151 that delay can be condoned if circumstances so warrant and her claim for compassionate appointment could still be considered and could not be rejected on ground of delay. 6. In the said case, representation was filed within 6 years of death and it was rejected. However, in the present case, first representation was filed after 13 years of death of her father, therefore, facts of present case are distinguishable. 7. Learned Standing Counsel has placed reliance on a judgment passed by co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ-A No.50935 of 2011, Ravi Shanker Vs. State of U.P. & Ors, wherein such delay was not condoned. It was also rejected that appointment on compassionate ground is to tide over the immediate financial position of deceased and minor cannot claim appointment on compassionate ground unless the scheme itself envisages specifically that as and when such minor becomes a major he can be appointed without any time consciousness or limit. 8. Court also takes note of Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the (Rules, of 1974) which was also the issue in Ravi Shanker (supra) that no such opportunity was envisaged. 9. In Ravi Shanker (supra) reliance was placed on a judgment of Supreme Court in Haryana State Electricity Board & Anr. Vs. Hakim Singh, JT 1997 (8) SC 332, wherein claim after 14 years was rejected on ground that application for compassionate appointment was moved after becoming major. 10. Court also takes note of Rules, of 1974. However, there is no provision that compassionate appointment shall be given to a dependent a minor at the time of death of incumbent after becoming major. 11. In peculiar circumstances, a lenient view can be taken, but for that there must be some communication from the elder members of family that her or his son/daughter could claim compassionate appointment after becoming major and there must be some communication from the respondents to give consent for that. However, in the present case it is also missing, therefore, giving a thoughtful consideration, no circumstances in the present case exist to take a lenient view, the facts as referred above are against the petitioner, therefore, relief sought cannot be granted. 12. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 17.4.2025 SB Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad