Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:67818-DB Court No. - 29 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 353 of 2025 Appellant :- Brajendra Pratap Singh Respondent :- State Of Up And 4 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Siddharth Khare,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Hon'ble Praveen Kumar Giri,J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 24.03.2025, passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-A No.60608 of 2013, whereby the claim of appellant/petitioner for compassionate appointment is rejected after noticing the facts of the case. 2. It is undisputed that father of the appellant/petitioner died on 21.07.2005 and his brother was granted compassionate appointment on 18.01.2007. The brother of appellant met with an accident and died on 10.12.2007. It was thereafter that an application was moved by the appellant/petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment on 19.07.2009. Such application was not considered as the claim of appellant/petitioner for compassionate appointment was not found covered under the scheme for compassionate appointment introduced vide Government Order. Admittedly, under the scheme which was applicable in respect of privately aided junior high school 'unmarried brother' was not treated to be a part of family. It was in this backdrop that the appellant/petitioner filed the writ petition in the year 2013. The order rejecting the appellant's claim dated 26.03.2011 was challenged. Clause 1(i) of the Government Order dated 31.01.1997 was also challenged insofar as 'unmarried brother' was kept out of definition of family. 3. We may also note that one of the prayer in the writ petition was also to direct the authorities to release arrears of salary due and payable to appellant's brother for the period he worked from 31.01.2007 to 09.12.2007. On this aspect there is, however, no consideration in the impugned judgment nor there is any order passed by the Court. 4. Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/petitioner contends that appropriate amendment has been introduced in the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 and 'unmarried brother' has been included in the definition of family. In respect of employees of Basic Shiksha Parishad also such provision is alleged to have been introduced. It is, therefore, submitted that in respect of aided institution the Government Order, excluding 'unmarried brother' from the definition of family is arbitrary and discriminatory. 5. Shri Arimardan Singh Rajpoot, learned State Counsel for the respondents opposes the appeal on the ground that after expiry of more than 17 years there would be no justification of issuing any direction by this Court to consider the claim of appellant/petitioner for compassionate appointmen. 6. Shri Khare, learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/petitioner, in rejoinder, submits that mere delay in disposal of the writ petition cannot be to the disadvantage of the appellant/petitioner. 7. Be that as it may, it is undisputed that grant of compassionate appointment is in the nature of concession by the employer to tide over the family in distress on account of death of sole bread earner. Compassionate appointment is otherwise a departure from the settled norm under Article 16 of the Constitution of India providing for equality in the matter of employment. Therefore, the consideration of claim for compassionate appointment has to be in light of the dominant purpose for which the scheme itself exists or else the consideration would become impermissible. 8. In the facts of the case, it is undisputed that a period of almost 17-18 years have expired since death of the sole bread earner. The purpose for which compassionate appointment is to be granted has outlived its life. In such circumstances, we are not inclined to enter into merits of the challenge laid to the Government Order excluding 'unmarried brother' from the definition of family. The issue on merit is left open for consideration in appropriate case. In the facts of the case, we do not find it appropriate to exercise our jurisdiction in the present appeal. 9. It is, however, provided that the claim of appellant/petitioner for release of arrears of salary due and payable to his deceased brother from 31.01.2007 to 09.12.2007 would be examined by the authority competent, keeping in view of the order passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Mainpuri, dated 10.09.2009. Liberty stands reserved to the appellant/petitioner to place all such materials before the authority concerned alongwith certified copy of this order within two weeks from today. Such consideration in respect of release of arrears of salary to appellant's deceased brother as well as consequential action for release of amount, if found payable, would be undertaken within a period of two months thereafter. 10. Subject to the aforesaid observations/directions, this appeal is consigned to records. Order Date :- 30.4.2025 Ashok Kr. Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad