Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
ALOK MATHUR, J.
Akash Srivastava – Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. and Others – Respondents
Writ (A) No. 7622 of 2024
Decided On : 16-10-2024
(A) Uttar Pradesh Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 - Rule 5(1) - Compassionate appointment - Application for compassionate appointment rejected on grounds that both parents were government employees - Court held that the bar under Rule 5(1) applies when the deceased's spouse is in government service at the time of death - The petitioner's father had retired at the time of application, but the bar still applied due to the mother's employment. (Paras 5, 10, 12, 17)
(B) Compassionate appointment - Not a right but an exception to regular recruitment - Aimed at preventing financial crisis for families of deceased employees - Must not undermine the rights of other eligible candidates. (Paras 12, 15, 16)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought compassionate appointment following the death of his mother, a government employee, while his father was also a government servant but had retired at the time of application.
Findings of Court:
The court found no merit in the petition as the bar under Rule 5(1) was applicable due to both parents' employment.
Issues: Whether the bar under Rule 5(1) applies when the applicant's father had retired at the time of application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the compassionate appointment rules are strict and must be interpreted to prevent misuse, emphasizing that the bar applies when both parents are in government service.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
ALOK MATHUR, J.
1. Heard Sri Parimal Bhatt, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Indrajeet Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 24.5.2024 passed by Director, Directorate of Electrical Safety, Government of U.P. wherein the application for compassionate appointment preferred by the petitioner has been rejected. It is during pendency of the petition that respondent No. 2 has passed a fresh order after being directed by this Court on 19.9.2024 where the case of the petitioner was again considered and rejected has also been assailed in the present writ petition.
3. The facts in brief as stated by the petitioner are that the mother of the petitioner, namely Smt. Manju Srivastava was appointed and working on the post of Junior Clerk in the office of Director, Directorate of Electrical Safety, Government of U.P. Regional Office, Lucknow since 1983 and unfortunately died on 28.12.2021. Father of the petitioner was also a government servant and was working on the post of Review Officer in the office of Government Advocate in Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court and had attained the age of superannuation on 10.10.2022.
4. It is on death of the mother of the petitioner on 28.12.2022 that an application was given to opposite party No. 2 seeking compassionate appointment. After due consideration of the case of the petitioner Director, Directorate of Electrical Safety, Government of U.P. rejected the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on 6.12.2022. The petitioner being aggrieved of the said order of rejection has preferred a writ petition before this Court bearing writ A No. 1427 of 2023 which was allowed by means of judgment and order dated 15.2.024 and this Court had relied upon the Division Bench judgment in the case of Kumari Vanshika Nigam Vs. State of U.P. and others passed in Special Appeal No. 73 of 2016 and was of the view that respondent No. 2 while rejecting the representation of the petitioner had not considered the relevant facts and circumstances necessary for consideration of the application for appointment on compassionate ground and consequently quashed the rejection order dated 6.12.2022 further directing him to reconsider the application of the petitioner.
5. It is in pursuance of the directions of this Court dated 16.2.2024 that the impugned order dated 24.5.2024 was passed by opposite party No. 2. Opposite party No. 2 while passing the said order had taken into consideration the provisions of Rule 5(1) of Uttar Pradesh Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1974) which provides that 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, one member of his family who is not already employed under the Central Government or a 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 applying these rules in the case of the petitioner it was found that his father was working on the post of Review Officer in the office of Government Advocate in Lucknow High Court and the mother was also in government service and consequently the petitioner was not entitled for being appointed on compassionate grounds. It is during pendency of the present writ petition that this Court had passed an interim order on 12.9.2024 giving liberty to opposite party No. 2 to revisit the order. Even after revisiting its previous order, the authority opposite party No. 2 was of the view that the petitioner could not have been grant the benefit of compassionate appointment considering the bar of Rule 5 (1) of the Rules of 1974.
6. Learn
Compassionate appointment is not a right but an exception, and the bar under Rule 5(1) applies when both parents are government employees, regardless of retirement status.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 does not disqualify a married daughter from seeking ....
Compassionate appointment is a concession contingent on strict adherence to eligibility criteria, not an absolute right, especially when a family member is already employed in a Government role.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the eligibility for compassionate appointment is determined based on the provisions of the Consolidated Revised Instructions on Compassionate ....
Point of Law : As more than 30 years have passed since the father of the petitioner/appellant had expired, neither there is any useful purpose to issue any positive direction, nor the facts of the ca....
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 ....
Point of law: A provision for compassionate appointment is an exception to the principle that there must be an equality of opportunity in matters of public employment. The exception to be constitutio....
The compassionate appointment policy must be applied based on the conditions at the time of the employee's death, not retrospectively.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
