2026:UHC:316 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS WPSS No.2327 of 2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Harendra Belwal and Mr. Sagar Kumar, Advocates for the petitioner. 2. According to the petitioner, his father, who was serving under the respondent department, died in harness in the year 1991. At the time of his father’s demise, the petitioner was a minor aged about one and a half years. It is submitted that, after attaining the age of majority, the petitioner moved an application before the learned District Judge, Nainital, seeking appointment under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as “the Dying-in-Harness Rules”). The said application, however, came to be rejected by order dated 23.09.2025. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner could not have applied for compassionate appointment earlier on account of his minority and, therefore, his claim ought to have been duly considered by the competent authority upon his attaining majority. It is argued that denial of such consideration defeats the very object of the compassionate appointment scheme, which is intended to ameliorate the distress of the dependent family members. 4. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the 2026:UHC:316 petitioner and after perusing the material available on record, this Court finds that the father of the petitioner passed away in the year 1991, i.e., more than three decades ago. It is a well-settled principle of law that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right or as a mode of regular employment. The object of such appointment is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased government servant who dies in harness, so as to relieve the family from sudden financial destitution. The very purpose of the scheme ceases once a considerable period of time has elapsed since the death of the employee and the family has survived the crisis. 5. In the present case, since over thirty-five years have passed after the death of the petitioner’s father, the question of providing compassionate appointment at this belated stage does not arise. It cannot now be presumed that the family continues to suffer from the same financial hardship for which such a provision was envisaged. 6. In view of the aforesaid discussion and settled legal position, this Court does not find any infirmity, illegality, or perversity in the impugned order dated 23.09.2025 rejecting the petitioner’s claim. The petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. 7. There will be no order as to costs. (Alok Mahra, J.) 08.01.2026 Arpan ARPAN JAISWAL Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3a20 dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5109CB 987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2026.01.08 15:57:21 +05'30'