Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 488 (ALL)

SHIV KUMAR DUBEY v. STATE OF U. P.

2012-02-24

B.AMIT STHALEKAR, R.K.AGRAWAL

body2012
JUDGMENT By the Court.—These three appeals raise common issues for consideration of this Court and, therefore, are being taken up together. 2. The facts of the Special Appeal No. 356 of 2012, Shiv Kumar Dubey v. State of U.P. and others, are as follows : The petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 76510 of 2011. The father of the petitioner while still working in Prathmik Vidyalaya Chivdahi as Assistant Teacher expired on 25.3.1996. The petitioner being elder son of the deceased was a minor at the time of his father’s death but after attaining the age of majority he applied for being given appointment on compassionate ground on 17.10.2003. According to the case of the appellant-petitioner, the respondent orally refused to provide him compassionate appointment and, therefore, he filed a Writ Petition No. 25501 of 2011, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 10.5.2011 with a direction to the respondents to take a decision in the matter of the petitioner. In compliance of the order of the High Court, the respondents considered the case of the petitioner and rejected his representation by order dated 20.9.2011 on the ground that since at the time of death of the deceased employee the appellant-petitioner was a minor, therefore, no vacancy could be kept unfilled till he attains the age of majority. It was further stated that in terms of para 3(8) of Govt. Notification No. 5193/15-5-2000-400 (222)/99 dated 4.9.2000 an application for seeking compassionate appointment will be entertained only within a period of five years from the date of death of the deceased. However, where the State Government is of the view that there were exceptional difficulties and circumstances on account of which the persons seeking compassionate appointment could not submit the application within a period of five years, their application may be considered beyond a period of five years in relaxation of the Rules. The above condition of relaxation is provided in Rule 5(iii) of The U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness (7th Amendment) Rules, 2006. However, the claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the application had been submitted by the petitioner after considerable delay and there was no explanation for such delay in the application, therefore, he was not entitled for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds and the application dated 18.5.2011 was accordingly rejected. 3. However, the claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the application had been submitted by the petitioner after considerable delay and there was no explanation for such delay in the application, therefore, he was not entitled for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds and the application dated 18.5.2011 was accordingly rejected. 3. Aggrieved by the order dated 20.9.2011 rejecting his application dated 18.5.2011 the petitioner filed writ petition No. 76510 of 2011. The said writ petition was dismissed by the learned single Judge vide judgment and order dated 3.1.2012 which has given rise to the present special appeal. 4. The Special Appeal No. 379 of 2012, Govind Singh v. State of U.P. and others, has been filed against the judgment and order dated 1.2.2012 passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition No. 4761 of 2012 of the appellant-petitioner. 5. The facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner’s father (late) Mohan Lal Rathore was a permanent Assistant Teacher in Sri Gandhi Janta Inter College, Bhunna, Kannauj and while in service he expired on 26.4.2000. It was stated that two applications were filed on 30.11.2002 and 3.7.20003 by the mother of the petitioner wherein it was stated that at the time of death of Mohan Lal Rathore, the petitioner Govind Singh was a minor and that he may be considered for being given compassionate appointment when he attains the age of majority. The petitioner upon becoming a major and in the meantime completing his B.A. and B.Ed. submitted two applications dated 27.4.2010 and 23.6.2011 seeking compassionate appointment as untrained Assistant Teacher. The two applications of the petitioner being barred by time it appears that the matter was referred to the State Government and the State Government vide order dated 9.1.2012 has rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the said appellant could not be given compassionate appointment beyond the period of five years and it was not a fit case for granting relaxation in the case of the petitioner. Aggrieved the petitioner filed writ petition No. 4761 of 2012, Govind Singh v. State of U.P. and others, which was dismissed by learned Single Judge by judgment and order dated 1.2.2012 giving rise to the present Special Appeal. 6. Aggrieved the petitioner filed writ petition No. 4761 of 2012, Govind Singh v. State of U.P. and others, which was dismissed by learned Single Judge by judgment and order dated 1.2.2012 giving rise to the present Special Appeal. 6. In Special Appeal No. 371 of 2012, Ashok Kumar v. State of U.P. and others, the facts of the case, in brief, are that the petitioner’s father (late) Sri Om Singh was posted as a constable in District Budaun and he expired on 26.7.1993 while in service. The mother of the petitioner submitted an application before the authorities on 1.10.20008 wherein it was stated that at the time of death of her husband Sri Om Singh on 26.7.1993, the petitioner was a minor, being only two years of age, and that he attained the age of majority on 12.8.2009 and has also completed his Intermediate and, therefore, he may be considered for being given appointment on compassionate grounds. The application, it appears, was referred to the State Government but the request was declined on the ground that the deceased employee had expired in the year 1993 and the application was being submitted after more than 16 years. It was further mentioned that the purpose of giving compassionate appointment was to provide immediate relief to the family of the deceased employee. It was also stated that the wife of late Om Singh could have applied for compassionate appointment on the ground of financial difficulties at the relevant point of time but she did not do so rather she waited for her son to attain the age of majority. In the circumstances, no relaxation could be granted to the petitioner for being given compassionate appointment. Aggrieved by the order dated 29.11.2010,the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 6462 of 2011, Ashok Kumar v. State of U.P. and others, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge by his order dated 1.12.2011. 7. From the facts narrated above, it will be seen that the common thread running through the above three cases is that the claim of the appellant-petitioners, therein has been rejected on the ground that at the time of death of the deceased employee they were minor and their applications seeking compassionate appointment were submitted after a considerable lapse of time and in any case beyond the period of five years as stipulated by the Rules and Govt. Notification, on their attaining the age of majority. The sole question for consideration before us now is that whether in such circumstances appointment on compassionate ground can be provided to the minor of the deceased Government servant where such application is made after inordinate delay and passage of several years and in any case, beyond the period of five years from the date of death of the deceased employee as stipulated in the Rules. 8. Provisions for grant of appointment on compassionate ground to Government servant dying while in service are governed by the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. The relevant rules are Rules 5 and 8. The Rule 5 is extracted herein below. “5. Recruitment of a member of the family of the deceased.—(1) In case a Government servant dies in harness after the commencement of these rules and the spouse of the deceased Government servant is not already employed under the Central Government or a State Government or a Corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government or a State Government, one member of his family who is not already employed under the Central Government or a State Government or a Corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government or a State Government shall, on making an application for the purposes, be given a suitable employment in Government service on a post except the post which is within the purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, in relaxation of the normal recruitment rules if such person— (i) fulfils the educational qualifications prescribed for the post, (ii) is otherwise qualified for Government service, and, (iii) makes the application for employment within five years from the date of the death of the Government servant: Provided that where the State Government is satisfied that the time-limit fixed for making the application for employment causes undue hardship in any particular case, it may dispense with or relax the requirement as it may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner. (2) As far as possible, such an employment should be given in the same department in which the deceased Government servant was employed prior to his death. (2) As far as possible, such an employment should be given in the same department in which the deceased Government servant was employed prior to his death. (3) Each appointment under sub-rule (1) should be under the condition that the person appointed under sub-rule (1) shall upkeep those other family members of the deceased Government servant who are incapable for their own maintenance and were dependant of the above said deceased Government servant immediately before his death. 8. Relaxation from age and other requirements.—(1) The candidate seeking appointment under these rules must not be less than 18 years at the time of appointment. (2) The procedural requirements for selection; such as written test or interview by a selection committee or any other authority, shall be dispensed with, but it shall be open to the appointing authority to interview the candidate in order to satisfy itself that the candidate will be able to maintain the minimum standards work and efficiency expected on the post. (3) An appointment under these rules shall be made against an existing vacancy only.” 9. A perusal of Rules 5(iii) would show that such cases, namely, of grant of compassionate appointment, would be considered in relaxation of the normal recruitment rules if such persons make the applications for employment within five years from the date of the death of the Government servant : Provided that where the State Government is satisfied that the time-limit fixed for making the application for employment, causes undue hardship in any particular case, it may dispense with or relax the requirement as it may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner. 10. Rule 8 provides for relaxation from age and other requirements. The said Rule provides that an appointment under the Rules 1974 shall be made against an existing vacancy only and that the candidate seeking appointment under these rules must not be less than 18 years at the time of appointment. 11. Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellants in all the above three Special Appeals placed reliance upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in Subhash Yadav v. State of U.P. and others, (2011) 1 UPLBEC 494, wherein also the petitioner was only six years of age when his father died in-harness on 8.8.1994. The application for compassionate appointment was made only after the appellant became a major on 5.12.2005. The application for compassionate appointment was made only after the appellant became a major on 5.12.2005. The said application was rejected by the State Government on the ground that it had been submitted after inordinate delay and the Government had decided not to extend the benefit of relaxation. The Court has further recorded that the appellant in paragraphs 23 and 24 of his writ petition has stated that he had been unable to tide away the crisis which he was facing at the time of the death of his father and some more additional factors have added to his misery. The learned Division Bench, therefore, was of the view that the petitioner had explained his pecuniary conditions before the State Government but these facts had not been considered by the authorities and his application was rejected on the ground of limitation alone. The Division Bench, therefore, held that the authorities did not have to blind foldedly reject the application if it has been moved after five years but they have to apply their mind rationally and discretion has to be exercised keeping in view other factors relating to the case. 12. In the case in Vivek Yadav v. State of U.P. and others, 2010(7)) ADJ 1, a Division Bench of this Court interpreting provisions of Rule 5 and Rule 8 has held as follows : “4. A perusal of Rule 5 would show that an application for employment on compassionate basis is to be made within five years from the date of death of the deceased Government servant. There is a proviso conferring power upon the Government for relaxing the time-limit fixed for making such application, where the Government is of the opinion that it causes undue hardship and for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner. Reading of this rule would demonstrate that the application must be by a competent person, who is competent to make it. A minor, therefore, could not have made application. The time-limit for an application contemplated by the rule, therefore, could only be read to mean ‘by a competent person’, in other words, who has attained the age of majority. In a case, where the applicant is minor, it would not be possible for the minor to make an application for various reasons including that he is minor and as such he cannot be appointed to a post in the Government. In a case, where the applicant is minor, it would not be possible for the minor to make an application for various reasons including that he is minor and as such he cannot be appointed to a post in the Government. Rule 5, therefore, will have to be read in such manner that it gives effect to the policy of the Government, which is to provide employment to a member of the family of a Government employee, who dies in harness, so as to mitigate the hardship. The issue whether the family of the deceased over long passage of time continues to face the hardship, would be examined on the merits of the claim. Rule 8 of the Rules, 1974 itself contemplates that a candidate seeking appointment under the Rules must not be less than 18 years of age at the time of appointment. In the instant case, as averred by the appellant, his mother was uneducated or illiterate, he was a minor though the elder son and there were elder sisters. Therefore, in such cases, considering the object of the Rules, the proviso to Rule 5 must normally be exercised, as for the purpose of dealing with the cases in a just and equitable manner. In exercising such discretion, no doubt, the authority exercising the discretion will examine the record before him.” Further in paras 7 and 8 of the judgment in Vivek Yadav (Supra) the Division Bench has held that ‘the test to be applied is does the family of the deceased continue to suffer financial distress and hardship occasioned by the death of the breadwinner so as to relax the period within which the application could be made’. 13. The question, however, which arises is that whether the applicant seeking appointment on compassionate grounds is a minor at the time of death of the employee, submits his applications only after attaining the age of the majority of 18 years during which period may be already several years have passed, and the family has managed to survive all these years would it be still incumbent upon the Government to consider as to whether the family of the deceased continued to suffer financial distress and hardship for all these years, which in many cases may be more than a decade and that could such an application not be dismissed as not maintainable being barred by time. 14. 14. Sri Ashok Khare has also placed reliance upon another Division Bench decision of this Court in Civil Misc.Writ Petition No. 13102 of 2010, Union of India and others v. Smt. Asha Mishra and another, decided on 7.5.2010. That was a case in which the deceased employee late Santosh Kumar Misra died in-harness on 14.8.1998 while serving as Upper Division Clerk in the Doordarshan, Kanpur. An application seeking compassionate appointment was filed by his widow Smt. Asha Mishra claiming that she has passed her High School and Intermediate Examinations in the year 1982 and 1984 and B.A. III year examination in the year 2001 and that her two sons Prakhar and Shikhar at the time of death of the deceased employee were minors. The Director General, Prasar Bharti, New Delhi by letter dated 7/8.12.1998 informed her that her name had been approved for compassionate appointment on the post of LDC, Group-C in Door Darshan, but nothing happened in this regard, thereafter, in the meantime, her sons passed High School Examination in the year 2004 and 2005 respectively. Smt. Asha Mishra filed an Original Application in the CAT for deciding her representation dated 13.4.2005 and also for quashing the order dated 25.5.2005 by which she was informed that all the names which were placed in the waiting list for compassionate appointment could not be offered appointment due to non availably of 5% of vacancies under direct recruitment quota in view of instructions of the DOP & T dated 5.5.2003 which further provided that if no appointment is offered within three years names would not be kept in the waiting list beyond a period of three years. The CAT allowed the original application vide its order dated 17.7.2009 quashing the instructions of the DOP & T dated 5.5.20003 and directing that the case of the appellant for compassionate appointment be considered afresh ignoring the limit of three years and taking into account the financial condition of the family. Aggrieved by the order of CAT, a writ petition No. 1303 of 2010 Union of India v. Smt. Asha and another, was filed. Aggrieved by the order of CAT, a writ petition No. 1303 of 2010 Union of India v. Smt. Asha and another, was filed. The said writ petition was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court on the ground that the case of Smt. Asha Mishra was rejected only on the ground that no vacancy occurred in three years as per the instructions of DOP & T order dated 5.5.2005 which was only unreasonable, irrational and is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 15. Per contra learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that in all these cases the deceased employee had expired long back and at that time the petitioners in all above three special appeals were minors and they submitted their applications seeking appointment on compassionate ground only after attaining the age of majority and their case was rightly rejected as being grossly barred by time. 16. Reliance was also placed on the provisions of Rule 5 (iii) of The U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 which specifically provided that applications for employment in relaxation of the normal recruitment Rules would be considered only if such application is made within five years from the date of death of the Government servant. It was also submitted that the only relaxation which was contemplated in the Rule was that where the State Government is satisfied that the time-limit fixed for making the application for employment, causes undue hardship in any particular case, it may dispense with or relax the requirement as it may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner. Submission of the learned standing counsel is that the relaxation contemplated in the proviso was only related to the specific provision of Rule 5 (iii) of the Rules, 1974 but if the family of the deceased employee had managed to survive for several years, for the example, in the present special appeals, ten years or more then such cases would not justify for grant of relaxation of the time limit contemplated in Rule 5 (iii) of the Rules, 1974. 17. Learned standing counsel has referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and others, (1994) 4 SCC 138 , wherein it has been held as follows : “2. 17. Learned standing counsel has referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and others, (1994) 4 SCC 138 , wherein it has been held as follows : “2. The question relates to the considerations which should guide while giving appointment in public services on compassionate ground. It appears that there has been a good deal of obfuscation on the issue. As a rule, appointments in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is Neither the Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules for the post. However, to this general rule which is to be followed strictly in every case, there are some exceptions carved out in the interests of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependants of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family.” 18. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family.” 18. Learned standing counsel has placed further reliance on the following judgments of the Apex Court to urge that subsequent to (Nagpal’s Case) the Apex Court has illustratively cautioned Courts against grant of compassionate appointment in the following cases : in Jagdish Prasad v. State of Bihar, (1996) 1 SCC 301 , it was held : “3. It is contended for the appellant that when his father died in harness, the appellant was minor; the compassionate circumstances continue to subsist even till dated and that, therefore, the Court is required to examine whether the appointment should be made on compassionate grounds. We are afraid, we cannot accede to the contention. The very object of appointment of a dependenent of the deceased employees who die in harness is to relieve unexpected immediate hardship and distress caused to the family by sudden demise of the earning member of the family. Since the death occurred way back in 1971, in which year the appellant was four years old, it cannot be said that he is entitled to be appointed after he attained majority long thereafter. In other words, if that contention is accepted, it amounts to another mode of recruitment of the dependent of a deceased Government servant which cannot be encouraged, de hors the recruitment rules. 4. The appeal is accordingly dismissed”. 19. An appointment on compassionate basis claimed after a long time has seriously been deprecated by the Apex Court in Haryana State Electricity Board v. Naresh Tanwar, (1996) 8 SCC 23 , the Apex Court said : “compassionate appointment cannot be granted after a long lapse of reasonable period and the very purpose of compassionate appointment, as an exception to the general rule of open recruitment, is intended to meet the immediate financial problem being suffered by the members of the family of the deceased employee. ..... ..... the very object of appointment of dependent of deceased-employee who died in harness is to relieve immediate hardship and distress caused to the family by sudden demise of the earning member of the family and such consideration cannot be kept binding for years”. 20. In Haryana State Electricity Board v. Hakim Singh, (1997) 8 SCC 85 , it was held :. 3. The father of the respondent one Hakim Singh was a Lineman in the employment of the Board. He died on 24.8.1974 in harness leaving behind him his widow and minor children including the respondent. About 14 years after the death of Hakim Singh his widow applied for appointing her son (the respondent) in the employment of the Board on compassionate grounds mainly basing on two circulars issued by the Board, one on 26.9.1985 and the other, in partial modification of the earlier, on 1.10.1986. As per the said circulars one member of the family of the deceased employee could be considered for employment in the service of the Board as a goodwill gesture, provided request for such employment is made within one year of the death of the employee. 12. We are of the view that the High Court has erred in over stretching the scope of the compassionate relief provided by the Board in the circulars as above. It appears that High Court would have treated the provision as a lien created by the Board for a dependent of the deceased employee. If the family members of the deceased employee can manage for fourteen years after his death one of his legal heirs cannot put forward a claim as though it is a line of succession by virtue of a right of inheritance. The object of the provisions should not be forgotten that it is to give succour to the family to tide over the sudden financial crisis befallen the dependents on account of the untimely demise of its sole earning member. 21. In the case of Director of Education (Secondary) and another v. Pushpendra Kumar and others, AIR 1998 SC 2230 , the Court said: “The object underlying a provision for grant of compassionate is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide the sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread earner which has left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood.” 22. In State of U.P. and others v. Paras Nath, AIR 1998 SC 2612 , the Court observed : “The purpose of providing employment to a dependent of a Government servant dying in harness in preference to anybody else, is to mitigate the hardship caused to the family of the employee on account of his unexpected death while still in service. To alleviate the distress of the family, such appointments are permissible on compassionate grounds provided there are Rules providing for such appointment. The purpose is to provide immediate financial assistance to the family of a deceased Government servant. None of these considerations can operate when the application is made after a long period of time such as seventeen years in the present case.” 23. In S. Mohan v. Government of Tamil Nadu and another, 1999 (I) LLJ 539, the Apex Court said: “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.” 24. In Sanjay Kumar v. The State of Bihar and others, (2000) 7 SCC 192 , it was held: “compassionate appointment is intended to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread earner who had left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood” 25. In Hariyana State Electricity Board v. Krishna Devi, JT 2002 (3) SC 485 : 2002 (10) SCC 246, the Court said: “As the application for employment of her son on compassionate ground was made by the respondent after eight years of death of her husband, we are of the opinion it was not to meet the immediate financial need of the family ....” 26. In Punjab National Bank and others v. Ashwini Kumar Taneja, AIR 2004 SC 4155 , it was held: “It is to be seen that the appointment on compassionate ground is not a source of recruitment but merely an exception to the requirement regarding appointments being made on open invitation of application on merits. Basic intention is that on the death of the employee concerned his family is not deprived of the means of livelihood. The object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crisis.” 27. Basic intention is that on the death of the employee concerned his family is not deprived of the means of livelihood. The object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crisis.” 27. In National Hydroelectric Power Corporation and another v. Nanak Chand and another, AIR 2005 SC 106 , the Court said: “It is to be seen that the appointment on compassionate ground is not a source of recruitment but merely an exception to the requirement regarding appointments being made on open invitation of application on merits. Basic intention is that on the death of the employee concerned his family is not deprived of the means of livelihood. The object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crises.” 28. In State of Jammu & Kashmir v. Sajad Ahmed, AIR 2006 SC 2743 , the Court observed : “Normally, an employment in Government or other public sectors should be open to all eligible candidates who can come forward to apply and compete with each other. It is in consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution. On the basis competitive merits, an appointment should be made to public office. This general rule should not be departed except compelling circumstances demand, such as, death of sole earner and likelihood of the family suffering because of the set back. Once it is proved that in of death of bread earner, the family survived and substantial period is over, there is no necessity to say ‘goodbye’ to normal rule of appointment and to show favour to one at the cost of interests of several others ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution.” 29. In M/s Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. Anil Badyakar and others, (2009) 13 SCC 122 : JT 2009 (6) SC 624, the Court said: “The principles indicated above would give a clear indication that the compassionate appointment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered after a lapse of time and after the crisis is over.” 30. The compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered after a lapse of time and after the crisis is over.” 30. In the case of Santosh Kumar Dubey v. State of U.P. and others, (2009) 6 SCC 481 , the Apex Court had the occasion to consider Rule 5 of U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as “1974 Rules”) and said: “The very concept of 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 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, 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 bonanza and also as a right to get an appointment in Government service.” 31. In Local Administration Department v. M. Selvanaygam @ Kumervala, AIR 2011 SC 1880 (para 9), the employee died while still in service on 22.11.88. The applicant was only 11 years of age i.e. a minor, at that time. The widow of the deceased whose age at that time was 39 years did not make any request for her own appointment on compassionate grounds. Application for compassionate appointment was moved after 7 years, 6 months by the son of the deceased employee, now major. The Apex Court held that grant of an appointment after 7 years, 6 months in the facts and circumstances of the case will not come within the scope of compassionate appointment. 32. In the case of Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2008) (11) SCC 384, the Apex Court has held that appointment on compassionate ground is a benevolent scheme by the State or Public Sector Undertakings to see that the dependants of the deceased are not deprived of the means of livelihood. 32. In the case of Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v. State of Maharashtra and others, (2008) (11) SCC 384, the Apex Court has held that appointment on compassionate ground is a benevolent scheme by the State or Public Sector Undertakings to see that the dependants of the deceased are not deprived of the means of livelihood. It only enables the family of the deceased to get over sudden financial crises. 33. In view of the submissions and catena of the decisions of the Apex Court and this Court, cited by learned standing counsel, we find ourselves unable to agree with the view taken by the Division Bench in the case of Subhash Yadav v. State of U.P. and others (Supra) and Vivek Yadav v. State of U.P. and others (Supra). 34. So far as the judgment of Division Bench in Civil Misc.Writ Petition No. 13102 of 2010, Union of India and others v. Smt. Asha Mishra and another, is concerned, we are of the view that in the said case the widow of the deceased employee had applied for appointment for herself immediately after death of her husband, who was employed as UDC in the office of Doordarshan, Kanpur. Her name was also duly considered and vide order dated 7/8.12.1999 her name was placed in the waiting list of candidates found fit for being granted compassionate appointment but thereafter her case was rejected in terms of the instructions of DOP & T dated 5.5.2005 which stipulated that no names would be kept in the waiting list for a period beyond three years. It was in those circumstances that writ petition filed by the Union of India challenging the order of CAT, was dismissed. The facts of the said case are completely different from the controversy involved in the present special appeals. In our opinion, the said judgment does not help the appellants in the present special appeals. 35. It was in those circumstances that writ petition filed by the Union of India challenging the order of CAT, was dismissed. The facts of the said case are completely different from the controversy involved in the present special appeals. In our opinion, the said judgment does not help the appellants in the present special appeals. 35. In view of the above proposition of law laid down by the Apex Court, we are, therefore, of the view that the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Subhash Yadav v. State of U.P. (supra) requires reconsideration by a larger Bench on the following question : (1) Whether the cases in Santosh Yadav v. State of U.P. and others, (2011) 1 UPLBEC 494 and Vivek Yadav v. State of U.P. and others, 2010 (7) ADJ 1 , on the interpretation of the provision of Rule 5(iii) and the proviso thereto read with Rule 8 of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, lay down the correct law? 36. Let the records of the above special appeals be placed before The Hon’ble Chief Justice for appropriate orders. ——————