Compassionate appointments cannot be cancelled based on non-disclosure of a parent's employment if the applicant was dependent on the deceased and no fraud was committed.

JUDGMENT :

Hon'ble Salil Kumar Rai, J.

1. The facts of the case as evident from the pleadings of the parties and the documents annexed with the affidavits are that Anil Kumar Upadhyay, the father of the petitioner, was posted in the office of the Additional Labour Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh, Lohia Nagar, Ghaziabad on the post of Welfare Assistant and died on 02.05.2012 while still in service. The petitioner was unmarried when her father died and it has been stated that she was dependent on her father. The case of the petitioner is that the relationship between her parents was not cordial and they lived separately and the petitioner was living with her father at the time of his death. On 07.11.2012, the petitioner filed an application giving the details of her educational qualifications and occupational skills and seeking compassionate appointment on the post of Clerk. In her application, the petitioner had stated that she had passed her intermediate examinations and knew typing. With her application, the petitioner annexed her High School and Intermediate mark-sheets and also the certificate showing her typing skills. It appears from the records that along with her application, the petitioner also filed the affidavit of her mother in which her mother declared her no-objection to the petitioner being given compassionate appointment in place of the deceased. The Aadhaar card of the petitioner and her High School certificate annexed with the writ petition show that the date of birth of the petitioner is 06.11.1994. Apparently, the petitioner was just 18 years old on the date she filed her application seeking compassionate appointment. By order dated 26.10.2013 passed by the Additional Labour Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh, Ghaziabad, a selection committee was constituted to consider the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds and on the recommendations of the Selection Committee, an appointment letter dated 13.12.2013 was issued by the Additional Labour Commissioner appointing the petitioner as Junior Assistant in the office of the Additional Labour Commissioner. The petitioner joined in pursuance to the aforesaid order and subsequently by order dated 21.06.2021 passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh, Ghaziabad, the petitioner was promoted to the post of Senior Assistant.

2. A complaint was made by a retired Senior Assistant, previously employed in the office of Deputy Labour Commissioner, that the petitioner was not the daughter of the deceased and further, Smt. Meena Upadhyay, the mother of the petitioner and wife of the deceased was also employed as a Class - IV employee in the Labour Department, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to be appointed on compassionate grounds in light of the prohibition incorporated in Rule 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as, ‘Rules, 1974’). On the said complaint, the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh, Ghaziabad issued a show cause notice dated 19.04.2022 to the petitioner. The petitioner submitted her reply stating that she had not concealed any fact while seeking compassionate appointment and also stated that the relationship between her parents were not cordial and they were living separately and the petitioner was living with her father at the time of his death. In her reply, the petitioner also stated that her mother had nothing to do with the petitioner and the petitioner was dependent on her father at the time of his death.

3. The Deputy Labour Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh, Ghaziabad, who was the appointing authority of the petitioner, vide his order dated 20.07.2022 rejected the reply of the petitioner and dismissed her from service on the ground that the appointment of the petitioner was not in accordance with the Rules, 1974 because at the time of the death of her father, the mother of the petitioner was already employed as a Class - IV employee in the Labour Department. In his order dat