Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:80182 Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6280 of 2025 Petitioner :- Indrajeet Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shiv Chand Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. 1. Heard Mr. Shiv Chand Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel appearing for the State. 2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has assailed the order dated 17th February, 2025 passed by the District Commandant, Homeguard, Meerut whereby his claim for compassionate appointment has come to be rejected on the ground that at time of death of his father on 10.10.2010, there was no scheme for compassionate appointment applicable to the Homeguard establishment. He submits that according to the impugned order, compassionate appointment scheme has come to be introduced in Homeguard establishment only on 27th September, 2012 when the Government Order to this effect got issued by the State Government. 3. It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that even though his father had died on 10.10.2010 but at that time he was minor being only eight year old child and hence he could not be offered compassionate appointment. It is argued that in matters where the dependants are minor, the cause of action should be taken to have arisen only upon their attaining the age of majority. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the matter of beneficial legislation pragmatic view should be taken by the authority while interpreting its provisions. In the instant case, petitioner had attained the age of majority in the year 2018, the rules for compassionate appointment being already enforced in the Homeguard establishment at that time, his application ought to have been given consideration instead of rejecting the same on the ground that rules were not applicable. 4. Learned Standing Counsel has sought to defend the order for the reasons assigned therein. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State, I find merit in the submission advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner that in matters of beneficial legislation, the Court has to give a broader view as to its interpretation looking to the object for which such a piece of legislation has been brought into force. 6. In the instant case, compassionate appointment rules have been brought into force in Homeguard establishment in the year 2012 considering the fact that in other government establishments the scheme for compassionate appointment was already in force. In the circumstances, therefore, the object was to offer appointment on compassionate grounds to the dependents of the deceased employees who meet with premature death, so that the families suffering from sudden death of sole bread earner of the family are provided immediate succour. It is true that principle of law is to the effect that the applicability of the provisions is to be seen on the date of cause of action and normally a cause of action would be on the date of death of an employee as on that date only all the terminal dues are paid but in matters of compassionate appointment the Court considers it more appropriate to observe and hold that where the object is to provide compassionate appointment to the dependants of a deceased employee then the cause of action should be taken to have arisen on the date when the heirs attain the age of majority for the purposes of applying for compassionate appointment under an enabling provision. However, where rules are already existing, the rules as are there on the date of death would apply. This interpretation would certainly be meeting the object for which compassionate appointment rules are brought into effect and are enforced. 7. In view of the above, therefore, in my considered view in the instant case, the cause of action should be taken to have arisen for compassionate appointment to the petitioner upon his attaining the age of majority in the year 2018. In such circumstances, therefore, the order dated 17th February, 2025 is held to be unsustainable and is hereby quashed. 8. The matter is remitted to the District Commandant Homeguard, Meerut, namely, respondent no. 3 to decide the claim of petitioner seeking compassionate appointment in accordance with law afresh and if he finds that claim of petitioner for compassionate appointment to be genuine and rightful as more than five years have now passed, he would be making an appropriate recommendation to the State Government for grant of necessary relaxation so that compassionate appointment is offered to the petitioner. It is further provided that decision shall be taken by the District Commandant Homeguard, Meerut within a period of six weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order. It is also provided that in the event the recommendations are made by the District Commandant Homeguard, Meerut to the State for providing relaxation as the application of the petitioner is being decided after more than five years, the State Government would be passing necessary orders giving sympathetic view to the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment considering the provisions as contained in Second Proviso to Rule 5 (iii) of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 that deals with the delay in the matter of application seeking compassionate appointment by the applicants, positively within a further period of two months. 9. Petition thus stands allowed accordingly. Order Date :- 15.5.2025/Shiraz Digitally signed by :- SHIRAZ ALI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad