MAHESH CHANDRA vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND THROUGH SECRETARY, IRRIGATION, CIVIL SECRETARIAT

Court
Uttarakhand High Court
Case type
WRIT PETITION SERVICE SINGLE
Decided on
27-03-2026
<table><tbody><tr><td>SL.&lt;br&gt;No.</td><td>Date</td><td>Office Notes,&lt;br&gt;reports, orders&lt;br&gt;or proceedings&lt;br&gt;or directions&lt;br&gt;and Registrar’s&lt;br&gt;order with&lt;br&gt;Signatures</td><td>COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS</td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td><td>WPSS 2653/2017&lt;br&gt;Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.&lt;br&gt;Mr. Sandeep Tiwari, Advocate, for&lt;br&gt;the petitioner.&lt;br&gt;Ms. Mamta Bisht, Deputy AG, with&lt;br&gt;Mr. R.C. Joshi, Brief Holder, for the State.&lt;br&gt;(2) Petitioner’s father was serving as&lt;br&gt;Peon in State Public Works Department at&lt;br&gt;Srinagar Garhwal. According to petitioner,&lt;br&gt;his father went missing from 1.10.1996.&lt;br&gt;Ultimately, his civil death was declared by&lt;br&gt;learned Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Karnprayag,&lt;br&gt;Chamoli, vide judgment dated 29.7.2006.&lt;br&gt;Petitioner was about 14 years of age in&lt;br&gt;2006, therefore his mother requested the&lt;br&gt;competent authority in State Public Works&lt;br&gt;Department to keep petitioner’s claim for&lt;br&gt;compassionate appointment alive till he&lt;br&gt;attains majority. After attaining majority,&lt;br&gt;petitioner applied for compassionate&lt;br&gt;appointment on 5.9.2011. Learned Counsel&lt;br&gt;for the petitioner submits that no decision&lt;br&gt;has been taken on petitioner’s application&lt;br&gt;for compassionate appointment.&lt;br&gt;(3) In this writ petition, petitioner has&lt;br&gt;challenged the noting made by Personnel&lt;br&gt;Department on the file of the petitioner,&lt;br&gt;which is at page 65 of the writ petition. As&lt;br&gt;per the noting, petitioner should have&lt;br&gt;applied for compassionate appointment&lt;br&gt;within five years from 2.10.2003.&lt;br&gt;2.10.2003 refers to the date when seven&lt;br&gt;years are completed after disappearance of&lt;br&gt;petitioner’s father. Additional Secretary,&lt;br&gt;Department of Appointment &amp; Personnel&lt;br&gt;states that petitioner could have applied&lt;br&gt;within five years from 2.10.2003 and since</td></tr></tbody></table><table><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th></th><th>petitioner has applied after expiry of five&lt;br&gt;years from 2.10.2003, therefore, he has&lt;br&gt;lost right of compassionate appointment on&lt;br&gt;account of delay.&lt;br&gt;(4) This Court finds substance in the&lt;br&gt;submission made by learned Counsel for&lt;br&gt;the petitioner that the date of judgment,&lt;br&gt;whereby civil death of petitioner’s father&lt;br&gt;was declared, has to be treated as the date&lt;br&gt;of death. Since the judgment was rendered&lt;br&gt;by learned Civil Judge on 29.7.2006,&lt;br&gt;therefore, five years period has to be&lt;br&gt;reckoned by taking 29.7.2006 as the&lt;br&gt;starting date. Thus viewed, five years&lt;br&gt;period expired on 28.7.2011. Petitioner&lt;br&gt;made application for compassionate&lt;br&gt;appointment on 5.9.2011, with the delay of&lt;br&gt;less than two months. Thus the view&lt;br&gt;expressed by Additional Secretary,&lt;br&gt;Department of Appointment &amp; Personnel is&lt;br&gt;erroneous, thus unsustainable.&lt;br&gt;(5) Having regard to the peculiar facts&lt;br&gt;of the case, the State Government could&lt;br&gt;have granted exemption from limitation of&lt;br&gt;five years to the petitioner, however State&lt;br&gt;Government appears to have taken a hyper&lt;br&gt;technical view. In such view of the matter,&lt;br&gt;the view taken by the Additional Secretary,&lt;br&gt;Department of Appointment &amp; Personnel&lt;br&gt;cannot be sustained in the eyes of law and&lt;br&gt;the same is hereby quashed.&lt;br&gt;(6) Learned Counsel for the petitioner&lt;br&gt;submits that even though petitioner had&lt;br&gt;submitted affidavit in terms of proviso to&lt;br&gt;Rule 2(b) of the Dying in Harness Rules,&lt;br&gt;1974, however petitioner shall submit fresh&lt;br&gt;affidavit disclosing the current financial&lt;br&gt;status of the family.&lt;br&gt;(7) For the reasons indicated above&lt;br&gt;and subject to petitioner’s furnishing</th></tr></thead><tbody></tbody></table><table><thead><tr><th></th><th></th><th></th><th>affidavit in terms of Rule 2(b) of the Dying&lt;br&gt;in Harness Rules along with certified copy&lt;br&gt;of this order within ten days from today to&lt;br&gt;the competent authority, writ petition is&lt;br&gt;disposed of with a direction to the State&lt;br&gt;Government to re-examine petitioner’s&lt;br&gt;claim for compassionate appointment in the&lt;br&gt;light of discussion made above and pass&lt;br&gt;appropriate order, within ten weeks&lt;br&gt;thereafter.&lt;br&gt;(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.)&lt;br&gt;27.3.2026&lt;br&gt;Pr&lt;br&gt;PRABODH KUMARDD2pscDen.oiN a5rg =sti.:4ai et Ptcal. :a R2N =l2lCA0lIu0yNo=Bm2 s,d3O 6iobega .D= 0=0en 3HHr82e =.2 62Id KG0a37 Ub DH00 1My0C0 7C a1P 1A:O9 5,R 1 R5s6U1A ta :ER=2Bf8Tf 8OU9D OT+D18T1 0FH CAa 5 UAK9R&#x27;3T6U5A0T65MK&#x27;AE9HA 1R7A6R4ANB3 K9aDH4f,8A 0fNE2FD1Dc, 5oF08u60=06H2AIfGCf6CHeC aC1eOA4UBeR56T81 8aOf03F5a 2UeDTaTFb6A1FR9CA8AdK54H86AC2N56D073F, 3, C91957BE53,</th></tr></thead><tbody></tbody></table><div><br /><br /> <b> </b><br /> <b>2026:UHC:2205</b><br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> </div>