Delhi High Court
Shivanand vs Union Of India And Ors on 13 August, 2025
Author: C. Hari Shankar
Bench: C. Hari Shankar
$~94
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 4786/2022
SHIVANAND .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Sriparna Chatterjee, Mr.
Soumitra Chatterjee, Ms. Manish and Ms.
Mansi, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Neeraj, Sr. PC with Mr.
Vedansh Anand, GP, Mr. Rudra Paliwal and
Mr. Soumyadip Chakraborty, Advs. for UOI
with Mr. Amit Kumar, CISF
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE OM PRAKASH SHUKLA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 13.08.2025
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
1. We state, with a sense of satisfaction, that this is one case in
which we are able to render grass roots social justice, which, at the
end of the day, is the very raison d’ etre of the judicial institution.
2. The father of the petitioner, while working as Constable in the
Secretariat Security Force1, died in harness on 26 March 2006.
Following this, with due expedition, the petitioner’s mother applied
for grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioner, who was
1 “SSF”, hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 4786/2022
Digitally Signed By:AJIT Page 1 of 17
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.08.2025
17:46:23
then 17 ½ years of age, against one of the 19 vacancies earmarked in
the SSF for being filled by compassionate appointment, on 4 October
2006. In her application, she specifically prayed that the petitioner be
granted compassionate appointment after he had attained the age of
18.
3. The application languished with the respondents for six years.
In the interregnum, the 13 vacancies which were available for
compassionate appointment in the SSF were transferred to the Central
Industrial Security Force2.
4. The CISF wrote to the petitioner on 28 December 2012 as
under:
“OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Sub: Appointment of the dependents of deceased SSF
personnel/Reception Officers in CISF on compassionate
grounds – regarding.
It may be recalled that in 2001 Secretariat Security Force
(SSF) under Ministry of Home Affairs was declared a dying force.
SSF was revived in February, 2011. The 378 posts of SSF which
fall vacant during that period were transferred to CISF. Since as
per the Scheme of Compassionate Appointments, 5% of these
vacancies are to be filled up by appointment of dependents of
Government servant dying while in service on compassionate
basis. Hence 19 posts in Group ‘C’ or ‘D’ are required to be filled
up on Compassionate basis against 378 posts of SSF transferred to
CISF. CISF has already made appointment of 6 wards of deceased
SSF/ Reception Organisation employees on Compassionate basis.
The pending requests from dependent of 44 deceased
employees of SSF and Reception Organisation under Secretariat
Security Organisation were screened by duly constituted Screening
Committee under Chairpersonship of Mrs. Shyamala Mohan,
Director (A&V).
2 “CISF”, hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 4786/2022
Digitally Signed By:AJIT Page 2 of 17
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.08.2025
17:46:23
The Committee has recommended 13 dependents of
deceased employees of SSF/Reception personnel as per Annexure
for appointment on compassionate basis against the remaining 13
posts falling under Compassionate Appointment Quota against 378
posts transferred to CISF.
The original applications for compassionate appointment of
these 13 persons alongwith the minutes of the meeting of the
Screening Committee are forwarded herewith for further action
towards their appointment on compassionate basis in CISF.
(AMARENDRA SINGH)
Under Secretary to the Govt. of India”
(Emphasis supplied)
A copy of the aforesaid letter was addressed to the petitioner as he was
one of the persons who had been recommended for appointment
against the afore-noted 13 posts.
5. Following this, on 30 August 2013, the CISF wrote to the
petitioner as under:
“OFFICE OF GROUP COMMANDANT
Central Industrial Security Force (CISF)
Home MinistryFileNo.:32015/CISF/Comp. apt/SSF/Admin./group/2013/3515
CISF Group Head Quarter
Saket, New Delhi-17
Dated: 30.08.2013Shivanand S/o Late Surender Kumar
H-875, VPO, Bakhtawarpur,
New Dlehi-110036Sub: In respect of appearance for compassionate appointment for
the post of Constable/GDSignature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 4786/2022
Digitally Signed By:AJIT Page 3 of 17
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.08.2025
17:46:23
For the selection of constable/GD Post on compassionate ground
you are to appear on 23.03.2013 at 8:00 Hours at the following
address. At the time of appointment you are to bring all your
educational certificates, caste certificate and experience letter in
original as well as photocopy which should be duly attested by
Gazetted Officer, alongwith three passport size photographs.
*****
Enclosure:
As above
Sd/-
30.08.2013
Group Commandant CISF
Group Head Quarter,
Saket, New Delhi”
6. Ms. Chatterjee, learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that
the petitioner had visited the office of the respondent in response to
the aforesaid letter, but that there was no further communication. As
against this, Mr. Neeraj, learned SPC, submits that the petitioner had
been called four times and did not turn up thrice and failed on one
occasion.
7. In the interregnum, the aforesaid 13 posts were reverted back to
the SSF.
8. Following this, the Ministry of Home Affairs3 wrote to the
petitioner on 15 May 2017 as under:
“ΝΟ. Α-12012/01/2011-SSO
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRSNDCC-II Building, Jain Singh Road,
3 “MHA”, hereinafter
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 4786/2022
Digitally Signed By:AJIT Page 4 of 17
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.08.2025
17:46:23
New Delhi, dated the 15th May, 2017To
As per list attached.
Subject: Appointment on compassionate posts in Secretarial
Security Force, Ministry of Home Affairs-regarding.
Sir/Madam,
I am directed to say that your name has been recommended
for appointment on compassionate basis by the Screening
Committee in November, 2013 and accordingly your name was
forwarded to CISF for compassionate quota vacancies accruing
against SSF posts transferred to that organization between 2001 to
2011. In view of the inability of CISF to appoint any of the
recommended candidates, it is now being considered to appoint the
recommended candidates on compassionate basis against existing
compassionate quota vacancies in SSF. In order to enable this
Ministry to consider your application for compassionate
appointment in SSF you are requested to submit the current and
updated information regarding the financial status as per the
enclosed proforma.
Yours faithfully,
(S. Samanta)
Under Secretary to the Govt of India”
(Emphasis supplied)
9. As directed by the aforesaid letter, the petitioner submitted the
documents relating to his financial status.
10. Thereafter, a Screening Committee considered the case of all
the aspirants who had applied for compassionate appointment on 20
July 2017. Paras 3 and 4 of the minutes of the screening committee
reads thus:
“3. The Committee observed, that the appointment of the 13
dependents of the SSF personnel who died while in service
between 2001 and 2011, who were recommended by the Screening
Committee in September, 2012, has already been quite delayed. In
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 4786/2022
Digitally Signed By:AJIT Page 5 of 17
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.08.2025
17:46:23
view of the opinion given by DOPT and Department of Legal
Affairs in the matter, these candidates may be considered for
appointment on compassionate basis against the existing
compassionate quota vacancies of Constables in SSF subject to
their being otherwise eligible for such appointment as on date. The
committee again considered the current financial and family details
in respect of these 13 recommended candidate and observed as
follows:
a) That 2 of the candidates recommended for
compassionate appointment have since expired. (Ms.
Mukesh Kumari and Shri Zaneet Kumar). Now, Shri Amit
Kumar, brother of Shri Zaneet Kumar has applied for
compassionate appointment in place of Shri Zaneet Kumar.
b) That one of the candidates recommended for
compassionate appointment is involved in criminal case
(Shri Naveen Kumar).
c) That one of the candidates recommended for
compassionate appointment is already married (Ms. Rita
Parcha).
4. Considering the above factual position, the Screening
Committee recommended that the following persons, out of the 13
persons, recommended for compassionate appointment by the
earlier Screening Committee in 2012, may be appointed on
compassionate appointment against the existing compassionate
quota vacancies in SSF in the grade of Constable:
1. Shri Satish Kumar Tripathi S/o Late Constable S N
Tripathi
2. Shri Sachin Kumar S/o Late Constable Bhagwan
Singh
3. Shri Shiv Anand S/o Late Constable Surender
4. Shri Dhanesh Kumar S/o Late H/C Nathu Lal
Nawaria
5. Shri Anil Kumar S/o Late Constable Suresh Kumar
6. Smt. Rita Parcha D/o Late Constable Laxman Das
7. Smt. Pushpa Devi W/o Late Constable Ashok
KumarSignature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 4786/2022
Digitally Signed By:AJIT Page 6 of 17
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.08.2025
17:46:23
8. Ms. Pinku D/o Late Constable Maharaj Singh
9. Shri Amit Kumar S/o Late Constable Surjeet Singh
10. Shri Deepak Sharma S/o Late Constable Subhash
Chand Sharma
11. Shri Ashish Kumar S/o Late Constable Khanchid
Singh”
(Emphasis supplied)
11. Thus, after the doors of compassionate appointment had
practically been thrown open to the petitioner, there was a complete
hiatus after the aforesaid minutes of the Screening Committee.
Something, presumably, happened in the interregnum as, on 3
September 2019, the following communication came to be addressed
to the petitioner by the MHA:
“No.I.25016/29/2018-SSO-I
Government of India/Bharat Sarkar
Ministry of Home Affairs/Grih Mantralaya
***NDCC-II, New Delhi,
Dt. 03 Sept 2019
ToShri Shivanand,
S/o Late Shri Surender Kumar,
R/o H.No. 875, Village Bakhtawar
Pur Delhi-110036.
SUB: Request for appointment on compassionate ground – reg.
Sir,
With reference to your letter dated 01.08.2019 addressed to
Hon’ble Home Secretary, it is intimated that the name of Shri
Shivanand S/o Late Shri Surender Kumar was considered
alongwith other candidates for appointment on compassionate
ground. However, name of Shri Shivanand was not approved for
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 4786/2022
Digitally Signed By:AJIT Page 7 of 17
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.08.2025
17:46:23
compassionate appointment in terms of guidelines issued by
DoP&T vide their Ο.Μ. Νο. 14014/02/2012-Estt(D) dated
16.01.2013.
Yours faithfully,
(S. Samanta)
Under Secretary to the Govt. of India
Tel. No. 2309 8052″
12. It is in these circumstances that the petitioner has approached
this Court, praying that the respondent be directed to grant
compassionate appointment to the petitioner.
13. We have heard Ms. Chatterjee, learned Counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Neeraj, learned SPC for the respondents at length.
Apart from pointing out the aforesaid facts, Ms. Chatterjee has placed
reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Syed Khadim
Hussain v State of Bihar4, The Manager, AUP School v The State of
Kerala5 and Malaya Nanda Sethy v State of Orissa6.
14. Ms. Chatterjee particularly emphasises the fact that, in Syed
Khadim Hussain, the Supreme Court allowed a plea of compassionate
appointment by the petitioner, who was only 13 years of age at the
time when he had applied on the ground that, by the time his case was
taken up for consideration, he had crossed the age of 18 and could
therefore be considered for appointment.
4 (2006) 9 SCC 195
5 Judgment dated 17 January 2022 in Civil Appeal 359/2022
6 2022 SCC OnLine SC 684
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 4786/2022
Digitally Signed By:AJIT Page 8 of 17
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.08.2025
17:46:23
15. Mr. Neeraj, who appears on behalf of the respondent, submits,
per contra, that the petitioner’s case could not have been considered
for compassionate appointment as he was only 17 ½ of age at the time
of this application. He places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme
Court in Delhi Jal Board v Nirmala Devi7.
Analysis
16. Having considered the submissions of both sides, we deem it
appropriate, at the outset, to reproduce paras 17 and 18 of the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Malaya Nanda Sethy, which
contain the following exordium:
“17. We are constrained to direct as above as we have found
that in several cases, applications for appointment on
compassionate grounds are not attended in time and are kept
pending for years together. As a result, the applicants in several
cases have to approach the concerned High Courts seeking a writ
of Mandamus for the consideration of their applications. Even
after such a direction is issued, frivolous or vexatious reasons are
given for rejecting the applications. Once again, the applicants
have to challenge the order of rejection before the High Court
which leads to pendency of litigation and passage of time, leaving
the family of the employee who died in harness in the lurch and in
financial difficulty. Further, for reasons best known to the
authorities and on irrelevant considerations, applications made for
compassionate appointment are rejected. After several years or are
not considered at all as in the instant case.
18. If the object and purpose of appointment on compassionate
grounds as envisaged under the relevant policies or the rules have
to be achieved then it is just and necessary that such applications
are considered well in time and not in a tardy way. We have come
across cases where for nearly two decades the controversy
regarding the application made for compassionate appointment is
not resolved. This consequently leads to the frustration of the very
policy of granting compassionate appointment on the death of the
7 (2022) 10 SCC 696
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 4786/2022
Digitally Signed By:AJIT Page 9 of 17
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.08.2025
17:46:23
employee while in service. We have, therefore, directed that such
applications must be considered at an earliest point of time. The
consideration must be fair, reasonable and based on relevant
consideration. The application cannot be rejected on the basis of
frivolous and for reasons extraneous to the facts of the case. Then
and then only the object and purpose of appointment on
compassionate grounds can be achieved.”
(Emphasis supplied)
The present case, we are constrained to observe, presents a textbook
example of the malaise noticed by the Supreme Court in para 17 of
Malaya Nanda Sethy.
17. This is a case in which, for reasons which may at best be
described as recondite, the petitioner has been treated with abject
indifference.
18. The petitioner’s mother submitted the application for
compassionate appointment just over six months after the death of the
petitioner’s father. It was therefore submitted proximate to the death
of the petitioner’s father and could not be treated as belated.
19. The respondents sat on the application for six years before
communicating with the petitioner on 28 December 2012, stating that
he was one of the candidates who had been recommended for
appointment on compassionate basis against the 13 vacancies
available in the SSF for the said purpose which was later transferred
to the CISF.
20. The further communication dated 30 August 2013 in fact called
the petitioner to appear before the respondents for being selected for
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 4786/2022
Digitally Signed By:AJIT Page 10 of 17
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.08.2025
17:46:23
appointment on compassionate grounds.
21. The petitioner appeared. He was never informed of any adverse
outcome of his consideration.
22. Rather, on 15 May 2017, the MHA specifically wrote to the
petitioner stating that, as the CISF had been unable to appoint the 13
candidates, it was being considered to appoint them on compassionate
basis against the existing compassionate quota vacancies. The
petitioner was therefore directed to submit the details of his financials.
He did so. The screening committee thereafter met on 20 July 2017
and specifically found the petitioner fit for compassionate
appointment and recommended his case.
23. A matter of considerable significance, which emerges from para
3 of the recommendations of the Screening Committee, extracted
supra, is that, keeping in mind the delay that had occurred in the
interregnum, the screening committee decided consciously to consider
the eligibility of the candidate as on date. As such, as the Screening
Committee was itself considering the eligibility of the candidates for
compassionate appointment as on the date of consideration, the
respondent cannot be heard to contend that the petitioner was
ineligible for consideration, as he was only 17 ½ years of age at the
time of the submission of the original application for compassionate
appointment by his mother.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 4786/2022
Digitally Signed By:AJIT Page 11 of 17
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.08.2025
17:46:23
24. After this, we see no justifiable reason whatsoever for the
respondent to have rejected the petitioner’s case by the impugned
order dated 3 September 2019. The order is completely unreasoned
and merely makes reference to the guidelines contained in the DOPT
OM dated 16 January 2013. However, the submissions of Mr. Neeraj
indicate that the reason for rejection of the petitioner’s case was the
fact that he was six months short of the appropriate age at the time
when his mother had initially applied for compassionate appointment.
25. That, in our view, cannot constitute a justifiable reason to reject
the petitioner’s case, for myriad reasons.
26. In the first place, as we have already noted, the Screening
Committee in para 3 of its minutes dated 20 July 2017 had itself taken
a decision to consider the eligibility of the candidates as on that date.
In other words, keeping in mind the delay that had been occasioned at
the end of the respondents themselves, as a result of which the
candidates had been subjected to unnecessary prejudice, the Screening
Committee had taken an expansive and magnanimous view and had
decided to consider eligibility as on 20 July 2017. There is no dispute
about the fact that, as on date, the petitioner was eligible and was
much over 18 years of age.
27. Though, in view of the decision of the Screening Committee,
the age of the petitioner at the time of original application ceases to be
of relevance, nonetheless, we may note that in Syed Khadim Hussain,
the Supreme Court specifically held that, even if at the time of
application, the petitioner was only 13 years of age, he could have
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 4786/2022
Digitally Signed By:AJIT Page 12 of 17
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.08.2025
17:46:23
been considered for compassionate appointment as he had crossed the
age of 18 by the time his application was taken up. We may reproduce
paras 4 and 5 of the said decision to advantage as under:
“4. We have heard the appellant’s counsel and counsel for the
respondent. Counsel for the appellant points out that after the death
of the government servant his wife submitted an application and it
was rejected without giving any reasons and the counsel for the
State submits that the same must have been rejected as it was not in
the prescribed format. If the applicant had not submitted the
application in the prescribed format the State authorities should
have asked the applicant to submit the application in the prescribed
format giving out the details of the procedure. In the matters of
compassionate appointments the authorities should extend the
service in an effective manner so that the eligible candidate may
avail the opportunity. Though the orders of rejection of the
application of the appellant’s mother was not challenged the
appellant pursued the matter and submitted the application later.
The contention of the counsel for the State is that the application
filed after 5 years after the date of death of the government
employee will not be considered and he further submitted that the
application filed on 7-9-1995 was rightly rejected by the
authorities.
5. We are unable to accept the contention of the counsel for
the State. In the instant case, the widow had applied for
appointment within the prescribed period and without assigning
any reasons the same was rejected. When the appellant submitted
the application he was 13 years’ old and the application was
rejected after a period of six years and that too without giving any
reason and the reason given by the authorities was incorrect as at
the time of rejection of the application he must have crossed 18
years and he could have been very well considered for
appointment. Of course, in the rules framed by the State there is no
specific provision as to what should be done in case the dependents
are minors and there would be any relaxation of age in case they
did not attain majority within the prescribed period for submitting
application.”
(Emphasis supplied)
28. In this view of the matter, the reliance by the respondent on the
decision in Nirmala Devi ceases to be of much relevance. Even
otherwise, the controversy before the Supreme Court in Nirmala Devi
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 4786/2022
Digitally Signed By:AJIT Page 13 of 17
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.08.2025
17:46:23
was with respect to a candidate who did not possess the requisite
academic qualifications on the date when the application for
compassionate appointment was made and had achieved the
qualifications only at a later date. The reference to age in the said
decision is merely by way of an aside and was not the actual issue
which was before the Supreme Court.
29. We may also reproduce, in this context, the following passages
from the decisions in Manager, AUP School and Malaya Nanda
Sethy on which Ms. Chatterjee placed reliance:
From Manager, AUP School
“12. However, there is an aspect of the case which would
warrant close scrutiny. The Additional Director, in his order dated
29 June 2017, directed that the sixth respondent should be
appointed in the first vacancy which arose after 12 March 2014.
Now, as the narration of facts indicates, the sixth respondent
initially sought appointment as a Peon. Subsequently, after he had
passed the engineering degree course and the Teachers’ Training
course, he sought appointment for the first time on 12 March 2014
as a Lower Primary School Assistant. Evidently, the application
which was submitted on 12 March 2014 cannot form the basis of
compassionate appointment. Such an application, which was
submitted nearly nine years after the death of the mother, could not
have been entertained. That, however, does not obviate the position
that the application which was originally submitted on 14 February
2007 for appointment as a Peon was not entertained without any
justifiable reasons. The application was found to be in order and
the claim of the sixth respondent for appointment was duly
scrutinized and confirmed both by the Sub-District Education
Officer as well as by the Additional Director. Hence, having regard
to the principles which have been laid down by this Court in
Shashi Kumar8 and P Venkatesh9, the claim of the sixth
respondent for appointment as a Lower Primary School Assistant
would have to be rejected and is accordingly rejected. However, the
claim for appointment as a Peon which was duly submitted on 14
8 State of H.P. v Shashi Kumar, (2019) 3 SCC 653
9 Union of India v P. Venkatesh, (2019) 15 SCC 613
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 4786/2022
Digitally Signed By:AJIT Page 14 of 17
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.08.2025
17:46:23
February 2007 shall stand upheld in terms of the two orders which
have been passed by the Sub-District Education Officer and by the
Additional Director.
13. We accordingly allow the appeal in part. The claim of the
sixth respondent for compassionate appointment on the basis of his
application dated 14 February 2007 shall stand affirmed.
However, the claim subsequently made in the application dated 12
March 2014 for appointment as a Lower Primary School Assistant
shall stand rejected. Necessary steps for granting appointment to
the sixth respondent shall accordingly be completed within a
period of one month 7 from the date of receipt of this order. While
the sixth respondent shall be appointed immediately within a period
of one month, the appointment may be adjusted as against any
future vacancy that may arise. The State authorities shall
accordingly process the claim for approval made by the first
appellant for appointment and of all other affected teachers in terms
of the present order. Necessary approvals shall be considered and
decided in accordance with law afresh within a period of one
month from the date of the order. However, we direct that the
appointment of the sixth respondent shall take effect from the date
it is issued and no arrears of salary or other monetary benefits
shall be payable prior to the date of the appointment. The
impugned order of the High Court shall stand modified to the
above extent.”
From Malaya Nanda Sethy
“14. Thus, from the aforesaid, it can be seen that there was no
fault and/or delay and/or negligence on the part of the appellant at
all. He was fulfilling all the conditions for appointment on
compassionate grounds under the 1990 Rules. For no reason, his
application was kept pending and/or no order was passed on one
ground or the other. Therefore, when there was no fault and/or
delay on the part of the appellant and all throughout there was a
delay on the part of the department/authorities, the appellant
should not be made to suffer. Not appointing the appellant under
the 1990 Rules would be giving a premium to the delay and/or
inaction on the part of the department/authorities. There was an
absolute callousness on the part of the department/authorities. The
facts are conspicuous and manifest the grave delay in entertaining
the application submitted by the appellant in seeking employment
which is indisputably attributable to the department/authorities. In
fact, the appellant has been deprived of seeking compassionate
appointment, which he was otherwise entitled to under the 1990
Rules. The appellant has become a victim of the delay and/or
inaction on the part of the department/authorities which may be
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 4786/2022
Digitally Signed By:AJIT Page 15 of 17
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.08.2025
17:46:23
deliberate or for reasons best known to the authorities concerned.
Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case,
keeping the larger question open and aside, as observed
hereinabove, we are of the opinion that the appellant herein shall
not be denied appointment under the 1990 Rules.”
30. The italicized words from the extracted passages from the
above decisions, particularly those in Manager AUP School squarely
apply to the present case.
31. The facts of this case are frankly disturbing. The respondents
cannot be permitted to lead the petitioner up the garden path for 12
years after his application for compassionate appointment, ensuring
him, in so many words, that he was on the verge of being appointed
and, when the petitioner was within kissing distance of the door, shut
it in his face.
32. As to why the respondent chose to execute a volte face between
20 July 2017 and 3 September 2019, we do not know, and prefer not
to hazard a guess, so as to extend the respondents the benefit of doubt.
Decidedly, however, if this Court does not come to the assistance of
the petitioner, we would be doing complete disservice to the cause of
justice which, at the end of the day, is one of our preambular
constitutional goals.
33. In that view of the matter, in the peculiar facts of the present
case, we quash and set aside the decision to reject the petitioner’s
candidature for compassionate appointment.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 4786/2022
Digitally Signed By:AJIT Page 16 of 17
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.08.2025
17:46:23
34. Following the final decision in Manager AUP School, we
direct the respondent to grant compassionate appointment to the
petitioner within a period of four weeks from today.
35. The petitioner would be entitled to be treated as having been
appointed along with the other candidates who were granted
compassionate appointment against the 13 vacancies in the SLP. He
would be entitled to continuity of service, as well as all other
consequential benefits excepts for back wages, with effect from that
date, along with the candidates who had been appointed against the
aforesaid 13 vacancies.
36. The writ petition stands allowed in the aforesaid terms.
C. HARI SHANKAR, J.
OM PRAKASH SHUKLA, J.
AUGUST 13, 2025/aky
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 4786/2022
Digitally Signed By:AJIT Page 17 of 17
KUMAR
Signing Date:14.08.2025
17:46:23
[ad_1]
Source link