- (1.) Pratima Pandey is before this Court assailing the validity of the order dated 31.3.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.13312 of 2016, Pratima Pandey Vs. State of U.P. and two others wherein the learned Single Judge has proceeded to make a mention that the date of death of incumbent, who has died in harness, is 31.5.2000; application seeking compassionate appointment has been moved in the year 2015; and once the family of the petitioner has been able to survive for more than 15 years after the death of the incumbent, the compassionate appointment could not be offered.
(2.) Counsel for the appellant, Sri Virendra Singh, has submitted before us that earlier married daughters had been excluded from the definition of family and, in view of this, the application in question has not been filed well within time frame provided for and, in this backdrop, learned Single Judge ought to have considered such fact while deciding claim for grant of compassionate appointment.
(3.) On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has countered this submission by submitting that the object of providing compassionate appointment is to save the family from immediate crisis on account of death of bread earner and once the record shows that the family of the deceased has been able to survive for more than 15 years after the death of the incumbent then the compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a vested right/reserved right for all the times to come, as such, special leave deserves to be dismissed.;