Holding

The appellant is not entitled to a compassionate appointment as the application was not made within the prescribed five‑year period and such appointments are intended only for immediate financial relief, not as a recruitment right.

Summary

Santosh Kumar Dubey filed a writ petition seeking a compassionate appointment after his father, a constable, went missing in 1981 and was later deemed dead under Section 108 of the Evidence Act. The High Court had earlier granted service benefits to his mother but dismissed the petition for appointment. The appellant argued that the receipt of benefits gave him a right to a compassionate post. The Supreme Court examined the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, which prescribe a five‑year window to apply for such appointments from the date of death. It held that even assuming a deemed death, the appellant should have applied by 1993, well before the present claim, and that compassionate appointments are meant for immediate financial relief, not as a recruitment entitlement. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether the appellant is entitled to a compassionate appointment under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.
Whether the five‑year limitation period for applying for compassionate appointment bars the appellant's claim.
Whether a deemed death under Section 108 of the Evidence Act gives rise to a right to compassionate appointment.

Legislation cited

Indian Evidence Act, 1872s. 108

Subjects

compassionate appointmentdeemed deathtime limitationservice benefitsgovernment recruitment rulesUttar PradeshEvidence Act 108financial hardship

Judgment

[2009] 9 S.C.R. 572

A SANTOSH KUMAR DUBEY
v.
STATE OF U.P. & ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 1955 of 2003)
MAY 18, 2009
B
[DR MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND DR. B.S.
CHAUHAN, JJ.]

Service Law - Compassionate appointment - Claim for
C - By son of the Government employee - Whereabouts of the
employee not known for past seven years - Service -benefits
given to his wife on the basis of his deemed death - Held;
Claim for the appointment was belated as per rules - On facts,
it cannot be said that the family was not able to face or.
D overcome the sudden economic crisis - Not entitled for such
appointment - Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of
Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 -
Evidence Act, 1872 -'s. 108.

E Appellant filed a writ petition seeking his
compassionate appointment on the ground that his
father's whereabouts were not known for the past seven
years. He relied on the fact that on the basis of the
deemed death of his father, in a writ petition filed by his
mother, the High Court directed to grant her service
F benefits of his father. High Court dismissed the petition
seeking compassionate appointment. Special appeal
. thereagainst was dismissed by Division Bench of High
Court Hence the present appeal.

G Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1. U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of
Government Servants Dying in harness Rules, 1974
would make it crystal clear that there is a time limit
H 572
SANTOSH KUMAR DUBEY v. STATE OF U.P. & ORS. 573
. -~

prescribed according to which a deserving candidate has A
to make an application for appointment within five years
from the date of death of the government servant.
Admittedly, the father of the appellant was untraceable
from 1981. Without entering into and deciding the issue
as to whether employment on compassionate ground B
could be asked for in a case of deemed death under
~
Section 108 of the Evidence Act, even if it is assumed for
the sake of argument that it can be so demanded and
asked for, such a right should and could have been
exercised in the year 1988 and computing the period of c
five years therefrom the period of limitation for making an
application for employment in the case of the appellant
expired in the year, 1993. [Paras 8] [577-8-E]

- -ii-
2. The very concept of giving a compassionate
appointment is to tide over the financial difficulties that D
is faced by the family of the deceased due to the death
of the earning member of the family. There is immediate
loss of earning for which the family suffers financial
hardship. The benefit is given so that the family can tide
over such financial constraints. The request for E
appointment on compassionate grounds should be
~
reasonable and proximate to the time of the death of the
i
bread earner of the family, inasmuch as the very purpose
of giving such benefit is to make financial help available
to the family to overcome sudden economic crisis F
occurring in the family of the deceased who has died in
harness. But this, however, cannot be another source of
recruitment. This also cannot be treated as a bonanza
and also as a right to get an appointment in Government
~
service. In the present case, the father of the appellant G
became untraceable in the year 1981 and for about 18
years, the family could survive and successfully faced
and overcame the financial difficulties that they faced on
missing of the earning member. That being the position,
H
.
574 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009) 9 S.C.R.
j '

A this is not a fit case for exercise of jurisdiction of this ·
court. This is also not a case where any direction could
be issued for giving the appellant ''a compassionate
appointment as the prevalent rules governing the subject
do not .permit for issuing any such directions. [Paras 8
B and 9] (573-E-H; 574-A-C]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. f
1955 of 2003.

·From the Judgment and Order dated 28.8.2002 passed
c by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench),
Lucknow in Special Appeal No. 246 (S/B)/2002.

Pradeep Misra for the Appellant.

S.S. Upadhyay, T.N. Singh Manoj Dwivedi, Vibha Dwivedi "'
D and Gunnam Venkateswara Rao for the Respondent. "ii-

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
I
Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J. 1. This appeal is
E directed against the judgment passed by the Division Bench
of the Allahabad High Court whereby the Special Appeal filed
by the appellant was dismissed. The said appeal was filed r
against the judgment and order passed by the Learned Single l-
Judge of the High Court on 8th July, 2002 who dismissed the
writ petition of the appellant on the ground that no case for
F
issuance of any writ was made out.
I-
2. The writ petition was filed by the appellant on the ground
that his father who was working as Constable was untraceable
and that his whereabouts were not known. Another writ petition ;-
G was filed by the mother of the appellant in which the Court
observed that since whereabouts of the father of the appellant
are not known for last seven years therefore the concept of
deemed death of the father of the appellant could be invoked
to the case in hand. Accordingly, there was a direction of the
H Court directing for payment of service benefits of the father of
SANTOSH KUMAR DUBEY v. STATE OF U.P. & 575
ORS. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]
the appellant to his mother. It was also contended in the writ A
petition filed by the appellant that having received the said
benefit, now a right has accrued to the appellant to seek for a
compassionate appointment in the light of the rules applicable.

3. The afore-mentioned writ petition was contested by the
B
respondent contending inter alia that the father of the appellant
~ was dismissed from service for unauthorised absence and,
therefore, in a case like that, the appellant was not entitled to
claim the benefit of compassionate appointment. The writ
petition was also opposed by the respondent on the ground that
. the rules as applicable did not permit any compassionate
c
appointment in favour of a person like the appellant and,
therefore, no such benefit could be given in favour of the
appellant.

4. The writ petition thereafter was taken up for arguments D
by the learned Single Judge wr0 considering the facts and
circumstances of the case dismissed the writ petition holding
that no case for such appointment was made out. Being
aggrieved, the appellant filed a Second Appeal before the
Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court. The said Special E
Appeal was taken up for consideration and by impugned
judgment and order dated 28th August, 2002, the Division
Bench dismissed the appeal holding that there was no scope
to interfere with the order of the Learned Single Judge. Still
being aggrieved by the said order present appeal is filed in F
which leave was granted.

5. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the
appellant as also learned counsel for the respondents and with
~ their assistance have also perused the records.
G
6. Counsel for the appellant has submitted before us that
by virtue of the orders of the Court, the mother of the appellant
got the service benefits sometime in the year 1999 and,
therefore, the appellant was justified in asking for a
compassionate appointment and it cannot be said to be H
SANTOSH KUMAR DUBEY v. STATE OF U.P. & 577
~
ORS. [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.]

satisfied that the times limit fixed for making the application A
for employment causes undue hardship in any particular
case, it may dispense such or relax the requirement as it
may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just
and equitable manner.
B
(2) As far as possible, such c:m employment should be
given in the same department in which the deceased
Government servant was employed prior to his death."

8. A bare perusal of the aforesaid rule would make it
crystal clear that there is a time limit prescribed according to c
which a deserving candidate has to make an application Jor
appointment within five years from the date of death of the
government servant. Admittedly, the father of the appellant was
untraceable from 1981. Without entering into and deciding the
issue as to whether employment on compassionate ground D
could be asked for in a case of deemed death under Section
108 of the Evidence Act, even if we assume for the sake of
argument that it can be so demanded and asked for, such a
right should and could have been exercised in the year 1988
and computing the period of five years therefrom the period of E
limitation for making an application for employment in the case
of the appellant expired in the year, 1993. The very concept of
i giving a compassionate appointment is to tide over the financial
difficulties that is faced by the family of the deceased due to
the death of the earning member of the family. There is F
immediate loss of earning for which the family suffers financial
hardship. The benefit is given so that the family can tide over
such financial constraints. The request for appointment on
compassionate grounds should be reasonable and proximate
to the time of the death of the bread earner of the family,
G
inasmuch as the very purpose of giving such benefit is to make
financial help available to the family to overcome sudden
economic crisis occurring in the family of the deceased who
has died in harness. But this, however, cannot be another
source of recruitment. This also cannot be treated as a
H
578 SUPREME COURT ~EPORTS [2009] 9 S.C.R.

A bonanza and also as a right to get an appointment in
Government service.

9. In the present case, the father of the appellant became
untraceable in the year 1981 and for about 18 years, the family
could survive and successfully faced and overcame the financial
8 difficulties that they faced on missing of the earning member.
That being the position, in our considered opinion, this is not a
fit case for exercise of our jurisdiction. This is also not a case
!
where any direction could be issued for giving the appellant a
compassionate appointment as the prevalent rules governing
C the subject do not permit us for issuing any such directions. The
appeal, therefore, has no merit and is dismissed.

K.K.T. Appeal dismissed.
i,

)'..