Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:122947 Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10400 of 2025 Petitioner :- Gorakh Nath Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Devbratt Yadav,Ram Pratap Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. 1. Heard Shri Ram Pratap Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel. 2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution petitioner has prayed for a direction in the nature of writ of mandamus to command the respondent no. 4 to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment which has remained pending consideration ever since 2004 on account of rival claim set up by two brothers. 3. It is contended that petitioner’s father died in the year 2002 and when the claim of the compassionate appointment of the brothers was not being considered both brothers approached this Court by filing two separate writ petitions being Writ Petition No. 20595 of 2004 and 30031 of 2004 in which directions were issued to decide the matter of compassionate appointment as rival claims have been set up by the petitioner and his brother. It is further submitted that thereafter the appointment could not be offered on the ground that there were serious rival claims between the brothers and hence the claim of petitioner and his brother remained pending. It is further submitted that now the brother of the petitioner has died in the year 2024 and accordingly now the claim of petitioner for compassionate appointment can be considered and may be directed to be disposed of. 4. Per contra it is submitted by learned Standing Counsel that the very object for providing compassionate appointment is to provide immediate support to the bereaved family who may have landed in sudden financial crises on account of death of sole earning member of the family. Admittedly in the present case, it is argued by learned Standing Counsel that father of the petitioner died in the year 2002 and so there was a need for compassionate appointment in the year 2002 itself. It is on account of the rival claims set up by two brothers and because of the dispute the appointment could not be offered and the family survived for pretty long two decades. It is thus contended that if the family has since survived for a pretty long two decades, today's situation cannot be compared with the situation that existed in the year 2002 or in the year 2004 when the applications were filed seeking compassionate appointment. 5. Learned Standing Counsel has placed reliance upon a judgment of Supreme Court in the case of and the recent order of this Court passed in the case of State of West Bengal v. Debabarata Tiwari (2025) 5 SCC 712 wherein this Court has held that there is no indefeasible right to get compassionate appointment. The very reason and object is to provide immediate support and if a family has survived for two decades, there is no now occasion to offer compassionate appointment on the ground that there is vested right to seek compassionate appointment. The compassion which could have been shown to the petitioner now cannot be shown today. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records, I find merit in the submission advanced by learned Standing Counsel. It has been repeatedly held by the Courts in India that rule of compassionate appointment rests on a principle of compassion to be shown to the dependents when suddenly sole earning member passes away but where the family survived the circumstance and settled down and lived on for years, compassionate appointment can not be claimed as an absolute rright, more especially when dependent was major at the time of death of the earning member of the family. Discussing policy of compassionate appointment the Court referred to its earlier judgment in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana (1994) 4 SCC 138 the Supreme Court has observed thus: "26. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, this Court observed that the object of granting compassionate employment is to enable the family of a deceased government employee to tide over the sudden crisis by providing gainful employment to one of the dependents of the deceased who is eligible for such employment. That mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood; the Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased and it is only if it is satisfied that, but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crises, that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family, provided a scheme or rules provide for the same. This Court further clarified in the said case that compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised in any time after the death of a government servant. That the object being to enable the family to get over the financial crises which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered after lapse of considerable amount of time and after the crises is overcome" 7. In view of the above, I do not find the facts of the case distinguishable so as to show compassion after a lapse of two decades of the death of the earning member of the family. 8. Petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 25.7.2025 Nadeem Digitally signed by :- NADEEM AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad