2025:UHC:7362-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. RAVINDRA MAITHANI AND THE HON’BLE JUSTICE MR. ALOK MAHRA Special Appeal No. 674 of 2018 20 August, 2025 Uttarakhand Parivahan Nigam ………Petitioner Versus Kundan Singh ………Respondent ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Mr. Lalit Samant, learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Shubhang Dobhal, proxy counsel for Mr. Devang Dobhal, learned counsel or the respondent. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J. (Oral) The present Special Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 17.05.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 620 of 2015, whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner (respondent herein) was allowed. 2. There is a delay of 60 days in filing the instant appeal. An application for condonation of delay (IA No. 12571 of 2018) has been filed supported with the affidavit of the appellant, stating that the delay occurred due to procedural formalities and the time consumed in obtaining legal opinion for filing the appeal. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent fairly states that he has no objection to the delay condonation 2025:UHC:7362-DB 2 application. 4. Having considered the averments made in the affidavit and the reasons assigned therein, we are satisfied that sufficient cause has been shown for the delay. Accordingly, the delay condonation application is allowed. The delay of 60 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 5. The brief facts leading to the present appeal are that the father of the respondent was employed as a Traffic Cleaner in the Uttarakhand Transport Corporation, Depot Pithoragarh. He died in harness on 25.11.2001; that, the respondent thereafter applied for appointment on compassionate grounds. At that point of time, there was a ban imposed on compassionate appointments, which was subsequently lifted in the year 2013; that, pursuant to lifting of the ban, the respondent was directed to furnish requisite documents and qualification certificates. On 22.08.2013, the respondent submitted the required documents; that, however, the Corporation, vide order dated 26.11.2013, rejected the respondent’s application on the grounds that under the prevailing policy, compassionate appointment could be offered only against the posts of Driver or Conductor and the minimum educational qualification prescribed was 8th pass for Driver and Matriculation for Conductor; whereas the respondent did not fulfill either qualification, and was shown as illiterate in the Parivar Register; and the application had been filed after lapse of five years from the date of death of the employee. 2025:UHC:7362-DB 3 6. Feeling aggrieved, the respondent approached this Court by way of Writ Petition (S/S) No. 620 of 2015, which came to be allowed by the learned Single Judge, with a direction to the Corporation to consider the respondent’s candidature for appointment against any Class IV post on compassionate grounds. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant–Corporation contends that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that as per the prevailing scheme of the Corporation, compassionate appointment was restricted only to the posts of Driver and Conductor, and not to any other post; that, the respondent was admittedly not qualified even for those posts, being illiterate; that, compassionate appointment is not a vested right, but a concession to tide over immediate hardship, and cannot be claimed as a matter of right, nor after the crisis has passed with lapse of time. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent admits that the respondent does not fulfill the educational qualification criteria prescribed for the posts in question. He, however, submits that the application had been filed immediately after lifting of the ban, but candidly admits that the respondent is presently aged about 54 years. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the record. 10. Though it is admitted that the father of the respondent was an employee of the Corporation and the respondent applied under the dying-in-harness scheme only 2025:UHC:7362-DB 4 after lifting of the ban, but, the respondent does not possess even the minimum educational qualification of Class IV and, therefore, does not fulfill the eligibility criteria prescribed for the available posts of Driver and Conductor; the respondent is now aged about 54 years, which also disentitles him from consideration. 11. In these circumstances, the learned Single Judge erred in directing the Corporation to consider the respondent’s candidature against any Class IV post and, if necessary, by relaxing the minimum educational qualifications. The scope of compassionate appointment is limited and is intended only to provide immediate relief to the family of a deceased employee, who, while in active service, has left the dependents in financial hardship and distress. The purpose of such appointment is humanitarian, to extend immediate financial support, and not to create a vested right of employment or to ensure a post comparable to that held by the deceased. 12. In the present case, it is admitted that the father of the respondent died in the year 2001. The respondent approached the Court after an inordinate lapse of time, by which the very purpose of the scheme stood frustrated. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of judgments has consistently held that compassionate appointment must be sought and considered within a reasonable period, otherwise the nexus between the death of the employee and the need for immediate relief is lost. In view of this settled legal position, 2025:UHC:7362-DB 5 and since the appointment sought was neither contemplated under the Corporation’s policy nor permissible under law, the direction issued by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained. 13. Accordingly, the appeal succeeds and is allowed. The judgment and order dated 17.05.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 620 of 2015 is hereby set aside. 14. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (Ravindra Maithani, J.) (ALOK MAHRA, J.) Dated: 20.08.2025 Mamta