Back
2024 Supreme(All) 1477
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.
Satya Prakash – Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh and Others – Respondents
Writ (A) Nos. 3071, 6248 of 2023
Decided On : 05-08-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Megha Pandey.
For the Respondents: Girjesh Kumar Mishra, Pawan Kumar Nigam, Ram Babu Singh.
IMPORTANT POINT
Compassionate appointments under the Dying in Harness Rules are granted based on dependency, not mere relationship, emphasizing the need for the applicant to fulfill eligibility criteria.
Headnote:
(A) Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants (Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974 - Compassionate appointment - Petitioner Satya Prakash, brother of deceased employee, entitled to compassionate appointment as he is dependent on the deceased, while Smt. Rinki, estranged wife, not eligible due to lack of dependency and prior settlement. (Paras 25, 26)
(B) Dependency - The court emphasized that compassionate appointments are granted based on dependency, not mere relationship, and the applicant must fulfill the eligibility criteria as per the rules. (Paras 15, 22)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner Satya Prakash sought compassionate appointment after the death of his brother, Chandra Prakash, who was the sole breadwinner for the family. Smt. Rinki, the estranged wife, claimed entitlement despite having received a settlement and living separately.
Findings of Court:
The court found that Satya Prakash was the appropriate candidate for compassionate appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, as he was living with and supporting the family of the deceased.
Issues: The main issues were the eligibility of Smt. Rinki for compassionate appointment and the dependency of Satya Prakash on the deceased.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that compassionate appointments are based on dependency, and since Smt. Rinki had not lived with her husband and had received a settlement, she was not eligible.
Result: Writ petition of Satya Prakash allowed; writ petition of Smt. Rinki dismissed.
ORDER :
[I.A. No. 3 of 2023 in re: Writ (A) No. 6248 of 2023]
Heard.
On due consideration, the application for impleadment is allowed.
Let the necessary impleadment be carried out during the course of the day.
[I.A. No. 6 of 2024 in re: Writ (A) No. 3071 of 2023]
Heard.
On due consideration, the application for impleadment is allowed.
Let the necessary impleadment be carried out during the course of the day.
1. Heard Ms. Megha Pandey, learned counsel for the writ petitioner in re: Satya Prakash (supra), Shri R.P.S. Chauhan, learned Additional C.S.C. for the State-respondents and Shri Pawan Kumar Nigam, learned counsel for newly impleaded opposite party no. 4 i.e. Smt. Rinki.
2. Shri Nigam has argued the second writ petition in re: Smt. Rinki (supra) on behalf of the petitioner, Shri R.P.S. Chauhan, learned Additional C.S.C. and Smt. Megha Pandey, learned counsel for newly impleaded opposite party no. 4 i.e. Satya Prakash.
3. In the writ petition in re: Satya Prakash (supra), the following prayer has been sought which reads as under:
“1. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to consider and grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner under the Scheme of Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants (Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974 as amended up-to-date.
2. Issue any other suitable order or direction, in the nature to which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in favour of the petitioner.
3. Allow the writ petition with cost.”
4. In writ petition in Smt. Rinki (supra), the following prayer has been sought which reads as under:
“(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the opposite parties to make appointment of the petitioner on suitable post in the office of opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 on the basis of on compensate ground under dying in harness Rule 1972.
(ii) Issue any other Writ, Order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(iii) Award the cost of the Petition in favor of the petitioner.”
5. At the very outset, learned Standing Counsel has drawn attention of this Court towards the letter dated 30.10.2023 passed by the Executive Engineer (Indo-Nepal Border), Public Works Department, Lakhimpur Kheri, Uttar Pradesh (hereinafter referred to as ‘opposite party no. 3’ in short) addressing to Smt. Rinki apprising that since both the aforesaid writ petitions are pending before this Hon'ble High Court, therefore, any decision in the present matter may be taken after final disposal of the aforesaid writ petitions. The aforesaid letter is taken on record.
6. Learned counsel for the parties in both the writ petitions have agreed to club the writ petitions together and decide the same by the common order and, therefore, both the writ petitions are being decided finally by the common order.
7. Ms. Megha Pandey has precisely apprised the brief facts of the case that the petitioner Satya Prakash was the real younger brother of the deceased employee namely, Late Chandra Prakash who was serving on the post of Personal Assistant in the Public Works Department under the opposite party no. 3 and he died in harness on 27.8.2022. At the time of the death of his brother, Late Chandra Prakash, his old aged parents and the petitioner Satya Prakash were dependent upon him. The petitioner Satya Prakash is unmarried and unemployed. Besides the petitioner Satya Prakash, there are three sisters of Late Chandra Prakash, out of them one has got married and two sisters are still unmarried, therefore, in the entire family, there were total five persons including the petitioner Satya Prakash were dependent upon the deceased employee Late Chandra Prakash.
8. Ms. Megha Pandey has further stated that the petitioner Satya Prakash is a graduate and is eligible for the benefit of the compassionate appointment under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servant (Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred
