Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:124298 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9466 of 2025 Petitioner :- Radha Kishan Respondent :- Managing Director Up And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sharad Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Hridaya Narayan Mishra Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Heard Sri Sharad Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Hridaya Narayan Mishra, Advocate for respondents. 2. The facts of this case are not under much dispute that petitioner’s father died in harness on 31.12.2003. Petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment, in principle, was rejected vide order dated 30.04.2016 since he was not qualified though a liberty was granted to submit an application again if he become qualified. 3. Petitioner remained silent and has not submitted any immediate application after attaining qualification and at a very belated stage in the year 2023 he submitted a representation to consider his claim for compassionate appointment alongwith a copy of Driving Licence that he holds a licence for heavy vehicle also. 4. There is no material on record that aforesaid application of petitioner was considered or rejected, whereas it appears that petitioner’s claim was considered in a sympathetic manner to appoint him as a Driver on contract basis and he was asked to undergo medical by communication dated 19.09.2023. Contents of said letter was very specific that it was only for the purpose of contractual appointment. It does not refer any claim in pursuance of application, if any, for appointment on compassionate ground. Petitioner thereafter was selected and appointed as a Driver on contractual basis. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner has now approached this Court that he may be appointed under dying in harness rules. 6. Learned counsel for respondents submits that claim of petitioner was already returned way back in the year 2016 and to grant him appointment on compassionate ground after about 22 years would be against the object of compassionate appointment. 7. Learned counsel for petitioner by referring contents of para 15 of writ petition submits that petitioner’s financial condition is very bad. 8. I have considered the above submissions and perused the material on record. 9. Father of petitioner died in harness way back in the year 2003 and petitioner has now come before this Court to claim compassionate appointment, i.e., after about 22 years. 10. As referred above, claim of petitioner was rejected or papers were returned by communication dated 30.04.2016 and admittedly petitioner has not taken any steps even when he got Driving Licence for heavy vehicle. Therefore, petitioner has remained lethargic and has never approached the concerned respondent to agitate his claim and on the other hand by showing sympathy petitioner was appointed on contractual basis. Now he wants to reagitate his claim which is a stale claim. 11. The purpose of compassionate appointment is to tied over the immediate financial crisis as it has been reiterated by Supreme Court in Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. and others vs. Anusree K.B., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1331, Malaya Nanda Sethy v/s State of Orissa and Ors., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 684 and Bank of Baroda and others vs. Baljit Singh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 745. In case petitioner’s claim is considered after 22 years, it would definitely frustrate the very object of compassionate appointment. Only on ground that petitioner is suffering from financial crisis, would not entitle him for compassionate appointment after a gap of such a long period since it is contrary to rules or policy, as the case may be. 12. In view of above, relief sought by petitioner cannot be granted. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 28.7.2025 AK Digitally signed by :- AWADESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad