In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and Others [(1994) 4 SCC 138], this Court held:

"6. For these very reasons, the compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over."

Honble Supreme Court in Mohan Mahto Vs. Central Coal Field Ltd. & Ors. ALSLJ 2008(1) 401 wherein it has been held that the time limit prescribed for giving compassionate appointment should have been reasonable. In the said case in terms of circular No.PD/MP/9.4.2/95/1151 dated 12.12.95 the cases falling beyond six months from the date of death of the concerned employee were not to be entertained unless express permission was given after thorough scrutiny of the case

What should be a reasonable period would depend upon the rules operating in the field.

in your case application is made after more than 10 years of accident . your chances are bleak

Your lawyer has rightly advised you. 15 years delay is insurmountable.

if you were a minor at that time on becoming major you could have applied . in such a case delay would have been condoned .

Uttaranchal High Court

Rajendra Ram vs State Of Uttaranchal & Others

COURT NO.2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

Writ Petition (S/S) 81/2004

Rajendra Ram

.......Petitioner

Versus

State of Uttaranchal & Others

.......Respondents

Sri Vinod Tewari, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Sri H.M. Raturi, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

3rd July, 2008

Hon'ble P.C. Verma, J.

By means of this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 17.10.2003, Annexure No. 10 to the writ petition, whereby the petitioner was denied the appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules on the ground of delay. The petitioner has further prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.

2. Petitioner's father late Sri Hari Ram was working as Beldar in respondent department, who died in harness on 28.12.1988. At the time of death of his father, the petitioner was a minor. His date of birth is 1.7.1984. The mother of the petitioner died before the death of his father. On attaining the age of majority, the petitioner vide his application dated 8.7.2002 applied for his appointment on compassionate ground under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. Thereafter, the 2

respondent no. 3/Executive Engineer, PWD Construction Division, Ranikhet, Almora vide his letters dated 25.9.2002 and 3.12.2002 (Annexure 3 & 4 to the writ petition) asked the petitioner to submit the necessary documents in order to process his request for compassionate appointment. The petitioner furnished the required documents in compliance of the aforesaid letters. But the appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules was denied to the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner's application was belated one and, therefore, barred by the limitation. These facts have not been disputed in the counter affidavit.

3. Undisputedly the petitioner was a minor at the time of death of his father. There was no occasion for the mother of the petitioner to move application for compassionate appointment as she expired even before the death of her husband. Immediately after attaining the age of majority, application dated 8.7.2002 was moved by the petitioner for compassionate appointment. But the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected only on one ground that his application for appointment was belated one. Rule 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 contains provision empowering the State Government/Appointing Authority to condone the delay in cases where the authority is satisfied. Here in the present case, the delay for not making application by the petitioner within the prescribed time was due to underage and after attaining the age of majority, the application was made by the petitioner. It was sufficient reason to condone the delay. 3

4. For the reasons recorded above, the impugned order dated 17.10.2003 (Annexure 10 to the writ petition) is set aside. Respondents are directed to reconsider the matter in the light of the observations made above. The writ petition is disposed of finally with the aforesaid observation/direction. No order as to costs.

(P.C. Verma, J.)

3.7.2008

Prabodh

If you were a minor at the time of your father's death then you ought to have applied as soon as you became a major. Judgments won't help.