The right to consideration for compassionate appointment is governed by the rules in force on the date of death of the employee in harness, and the change in rules affecting the dependant's candidature, whether from the Dying-in-Harness Rules or the recruitment Rules applicable, is of no consequence. The court emphasized the importance of a determinate and fixed criteria for eligibility, eschewing interpretation based on individual action or inaction.

JUDGMENT :

J.J. MUNIR, J.

1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 03.09.2013, passed by the District Judge of Firozabad, bearing Administrative Order No. 90 of 2013, rejecting the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment.

2. The petitioner’s husband, the late Mahadev Prasad, was a permanent Class-IV employee in the establishment of the District Court, Firozabad. He met with an accident on 22.03.2011 and died the same day, still in harness. After her husband’s demise, the petitioner moved an application before the learned District Judge, Firozabad, seeking compassionate appointment under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (for short, ‘the Rules of 1974’). The petitioner’s application for appointment on compassionate ground lay unattended for a considerable period of time, leaving her with no option but to move this Court by means of Writ (A) No. 27883 of 2011, seeking a direction to decide her application. When the said writ petition came on 13.05.2011, learned Counsel for the second respondent informed the Court that the petitioner’s application had been rejected by the learned District Judge on 10.05.2011. Taking cognizance of the aforesaid statement made by learned Counsel for the respondents, Writ (A) No. 27883 of 2011 was dismissed, with a direction to the learned District District Judge, Firozabad to supply a copy of the order dated 10.05.2011 to the petitioner. The petitioner received a copy of the order dated 10.05.2011 issued by the Senior Administrative Officer, District Court, Firozabad, rejecting her claim for compassionate appointment.

3. It is the petitioner’s case that a committee of two Judges of the Judgeship at Firozabad held the petitioner not entitled to be considered for appointment under the Rules of 1974. The aforesaid opinion was expressed by the committee of two Judges in their report dated 13.04.2011 and the said report was accepted by the learned District Judge, Firozabad vide order dated 10.05.2011. A true copy of the report dated 13.04.2011 and a copy of the order of the learned District Judge, Firozabad dated 10.05.2011, approving the said report communicated by the Senior Administrative Officer vide memo dated 17.05.2011, is on record.

4. The petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment was rejected by the Committee on ground that the petitioner had passed her Class IVth examination, whereas according the U.P. Subordinate Civil Courts Inferior Establishment Rules, 1955 (for short, ‘the Rules of 1955’), the minimum qualification for appointment as a Class-IV employee is Junior High-school. It is also averred in paragraph no. 11 of the writ petition that the late Mahadev Prasad’s mother (Smt. Shakuntala Devi) along with her other son, Tinku Sharma also moved an application before the learned District Judge, Firozabad with the averment that Mahadev Prasad was unmarried and died in harness on 22.03.2011. On the foot of this allegation, appointment under the Rules of 1974 was sought in favour of Tinku Sharma, Mahadev Prasad’s brother. The application moved by Smt. Shakuntala Devi and Tinku Sharma also received consideration by the Committee of two Judges in the report dated 13.04.2011. It was opined regarding Tinku Sharma’s claim that he is not a family member, as defined under Section 2(c) of the Rules of 1974. It was held that for the said reason, Tinku Sharma was not entitled to appointment on compassionate grounds.

5. Smt. Shakuntala Devi along with Tinku Sharma filed Writ (A) No. 52717 of 2011, challenging the order dated 10.05.2011 passed by the learned District Judge, Firozabad, with a further prayer that Tinku Sharma’s case for compassionate appointment be considered in accordance with the Rules of 1974. The petitioner, in assertion of her rights, instituted Writ (A) No. 35871 of 2011, also challenging the order dated 10.05.2011/ 17.05.2011, impugning it regarding the part that has negatived her claim. Both the