Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:108445 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9118 of 2025 Petitioner :- Poonam Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Abhas Sharma,Anshul Pathak,Rajesh Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Santosh Kumar Mishra Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Heard Sri Anshul Pathak, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri S.K. Mishra, Advocate for Respondents-2 to 5. 2. Petitioner is daughter of deceased employee, who died in harness way back on 22.01.2010. Petitioner has come up with a case that though she was married before her father died but within few months of her father’s death, her husband died and thereafter she is in a deep financial constraint and is dependent on family pension paid to her mother as she is staying with her mother. 3. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner has filed application for compassionate appointment in the year 2011 which kept pending and till date it has not been decided, though he fairly submits that petitioner was lethargic as she has not taken any steps to decide her application and now she has approached this Court referring legal provisions that widow daughter is included in the definition of family for the purpose of compassionate appointment. Learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Punita Bhatt alias Punita Dhawan vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL), New Delhi and others, 2024:AHC-LKO:77237-DB and submits that petitioner’s claim may be considered in accordance with law ignoring delay aspect and taking note of financial position of petitioner and her mother. 4. Learned counsel appearing for respondents has opposed the above submissions and submits that not only there is a huge delay of 15 years but basic requirement that widow daughter ought to have been dependent at the time when her father died in harness is also missing. He refers a judgment passed by Supreme Court in State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari and others, AIR Online 2023 SC 174. 5. It is well settled that the object of compassionate appointment is to tide over the immediate financial crises which in normal circumstances does not exist after a period of one and half decade as well as that petitioner was not active to pursue her claim for compassionate appointment. 6. Still considering that petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with observation that claim of petitioner will be considered in accordance with law and in case petitioner found to be in a position where she is not able to carry out her day-to-day life, her claim may be considered. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not entered into merit of claim of petitioner regarding compassionate appointment. Order Date :- 9.7.2025 AK Digitally signed by :- AWADESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad