2026:UHC:2828 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS/542/2026 Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J. Mr. Amar Murti Shukla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Dinesh Bankoti, Brief Holder for the State. Mr. T.A. Khan, Senior Advocate for the Sugar Factory. 2. Petitioner applied for compassionate appointment after death of his father, who passed away on 12.11.2018. His application was rejected vide order dated 20.05.2025 only on the ground of delay. It is mentioned in the order that application should have been made within three years. 3. It is contended by learned counsel for petitioner that as per Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, applicable in respect of State employees, application for compassionate appointment can be made within five years from the date of death. It is thus contended that period of three years referred to in the impugned order, is extremely short and it has no statutory basis. 4. Mr. T.A. Khan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sugar Mill relies upon the policy decision taken by Uttarakhand Cooperative Sugar Mill Federation Limited on 15.11.2011. In para 14 of the said policy decision, it is mentioned that application for compassionate 2026:UHC:2828 appointment can be made by the dependent of a deceased employee within three years from the date of death. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that although the policy provides for the period within which application has to be made, however, consequence of not making application within three years is not indicated in the policy. Thus it is contended that provision contained in para 14 is to be treated as directory and not mandatory. 6. This Court finds substance in the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. Although the outer limit for making application is indicated in para 14 of the policy framed by Uttarakhand Cooperative Sugar Mills Federation Limited; however, consequence of not making application within three years is not indicated, thus para 14 has to be treated as directory and not mandatory. 8. Even otherwise also, State Government is having all pervasive administrative control over Bazpur Cooperative Sugar Factory Limited, its General Manager is an officer of the State Government belonging to Provincial Civil Service; and substantial amount of funds are provided by the State Government each year for running the sugar mill, therefore, there cannot 2026:UHC:2828 be any doubt that the sugar mill falls within the meaning of State, as defined under Article 12 of the Constitution. 9. The provision for compassionate appointment is made by the Apex body of the State run Sugar Mills in keeping with its role as model employer to provide succour to the unfortunate family members, who are rendered penniless due to death of sole bread earner. Therefore, rejection of petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment merely because there was delay of about 1½ months, does not appear to be proper. 10. The impugned rejection order is, therefore, liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed. 11. The writ petition is allowed. The competent authority is directed to reconsider petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment, on merit, within six weeks from date of presentation of certified copy of this order. (Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 18.04.2026 Mahinder/ MAHINDER SINGH Digitally signed by MAHINDER SINGH DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=da6212e6e78d94ed3134842bc6a8d6ca168979ca7b8c2f031 a92d1a18b08923c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=AB77B7C5B240908B392BE84F5CDD4C2AF35DC4626 D305B1BC9EA4BABA43D2B8F, cn=MAHINDER SINGH Date: 2026.04.21 17:41:26 +05'30'