Point of law : Provided under Rule 5(1) of the Rules 1974 that member of the family of the deceased could only be given appointment in case a government servant dies during service 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.

JUDGMENT :

1. Today when the matter is taken up, learned counsel for the respondents placed instruction in the matter, the same is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Chandan Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition with the prayer to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 21.04.2018 passed by the respondent No.2 namely Registrar (J) (S&A/ Establishment) High Court, Allahabad and order dated 21.08.2019 passed by the respondent No.3 namely Assistant Registrar, Accounts-D, High Court Allahabad. A further prayer has been made to issue a writ of mandamus to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment.

4. Facts in brief as contained in the writ petition that the father of the petitioner was initially appointed on 15.03.1990 and was posted as Review Officer in the High Court at Allahabad. While working on the aforesaid post he died on 21.08.2016. Father of the petitioner left behind his dependants as old parents, widow, two unmarried sons and one unmarried daughter. The petitioner claims to be qualified and is holding educational qualification of B.A. & Diploma Holder in Computer from NIELIT. After the death, the mother of the petitioner submitted an application on 22.09.2017 before the respondent No.1 by which a request has been made to provide compassionate appointment in favour of the dependant. The respondent No.2 by its order dated 21.04.2018 has rejected the claim set up by the petitioner on the ground that the spouse of the deceased employee is already in employment. The order passed by the respondent No.2 dated 21.04.2018 is reproduced below:-

“With reference to his application dated 22.09.2017 and other supplementary applications regarding appointment in this Hon’ble High Court, on the post of Routine Grade Clerk on compassionate ground under U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules 1974 (as amended upto date), Sri Akhilesh Pratap, Son of Late Satyendra Pratap, Ex-Review Officer, High Court, Allahabad, is hereby informed that Hon’ble the Court has declined it since the spouse of the deceased employee is already employed in government service as such the applicant’s claim is not covered under ‘The Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying In Harness Rules.’

5. After the aforesaid order was passed another representation was made by the mother of the petitioner before the respondent No.1 on 14.02.2019, the same was also rejected by the respondent No.3 vide order dated 21.08.2019. The aforesaid order is reproduced below:-

“With reference to her representation dated 14.02.2019 seeking appointment of her son Sri Akhilesh Pratap, Son of Late Satyendra Pratap, Ex-Review Officer, High Court, Allahabad,. In this Hon’ble High Court, on compassionate ground under U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying In Harness Rules, 1974 (as amended upto date), Smt. Lakshmi Devi. Wife of Late Satyendra Pratap, Ex Review Officer (Emp. No.3342), High Court, Allahabad, is hereby informed that Learned Registrar General vide his order dated 19.08.2019 has rejected it in light of resolution dated 10.04.2018 of Hon’ble Recruitment Committee.”

6. Subsequently, the petitioner himself made a representation dated 06.02.2020 through proper channel addressed to Hon’ble the Chief Justice of this court for providing compassionate appointment.

7. It is argued that on the same set of facts, certain persons were given appointment on compassionate ground. It is argued that the order passed by the respondents which are under-challenge in the present writ petition are absolutely illegal and are liable to be set aside.

8. On the other hand, it is argued by learned counsel appearing for the respondents that the claim set up by the petitioner was rightly rejected by the respondent No.2 while passing the order dated 24.02.2018. Counsel for the respondent reli