Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Praveen Kumar Srivastava
For the Respondent: Shad Khan,Shishir Prakash

Judgment Text (High Court of Allahabad - Writ A No. 6617 of 2025)

Citation: 2025 Supreme(All) 2863 | 2025 AHC 111587
Court: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Judge: AJAY BHANOT, J.
Parties: Smt. Babita Kumari Alias Babita Devi (Appellant) Versus Uttar Pradesh Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited And 3 Others (Respondents)
Case Number: Writ A No. 6617 of 2025
Date of Decision: 10-07-2025 (!) (!)

JUDGMENT (!)

Ajay Bhanot, J. (!)

[1] Heard Shri Praveen Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Shad Khan, learned counsel for the respondent. [1]

[2] By the impugned order dated 22.04.2025, the claim of the petitioner for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds on Class IV post has been rejected. [2]

[3] The impugned order dated 22.04.2025 finds that the resolution of the Board and the office memorandum of 16.07.2024 bars compassionate appointments on Class IV posts, and confines such appointments to Class III posts only. As per the aforesaid circular/OM dated 16.07.2024 the said policy of barring appointments on Class IV posts shall be applicable to the pending applications as well. The impugned order records that the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was submitted prior to the aforesaid office memorandum dated 16.07.2024. However, since no administrative approval for appointment of the petitioner was forthcoming, her case shall be covered by the office memorandum dated 16.07.2024. On this footing the petitioner is not entitled to appointment on a Class IV post. The petitioner’s case for compassionate appointment was accordingly declined by the impugned order. [3]

[4] The husband of the petitioner died in harness on 22.10.2023. The petitioner made an application for grant of appointment on a Class IV post on compassionate ground in February, 2024. The office memorandum on the footing barring appointments on Class IV posts came into existence on 16.07.2024. The petitioner is only qualified for appointment on a Class IV post and does not possess educational qualifications for appointment on a Class III post. [4]

[5] The question which arises for consideration in this case is whether the said office memorandum dated 16.07.2024 pertaining to appointments on compassionate grounds shall apply prospectively or will operate retrospectively. [5]

[6] The issue regarding prospective or retrospective application of schemes for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds has been considered by the Supreme Court. Compassionate appointment is not automatic and is subject to strict scrutiny of parameters including family financial position and economic dependence on the deceased employee. No vested right exists to such appointment. Where modified schemes dilute existing benefits, the scheme in force at the time of death applies, as the date of death is the fixed criterion, not the variable date of consideration. Retrospective application to pending cases based on date of consideration would lead to inequitable differential treatment. [6] (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)

[7] The modified scheme of compassionate appointment introduced by the office memorandum dated 16.07.2024 works to the detriment of the petitioner as it restricts compassionate appointments to Class III posts only. Class III posts obviously require a higher level of educational qualifications. Persons like the petitioner at the bottom of the social heap often live at the intersection of disabilities like acute poverty and total illiteracy. Often the said class of persons are only eligible for appointment on Class IV posts. Further these classes of citizenry are simply unable to acquire higher qualifications for Class III posts due to their socioeconomic marginalization. By barring compassionate ground appointment on Class IV posts the office memorandum dated 16.07.2024 effectively precludes the said marginalized class of citizens to which the petitioner belongs from the benefits of appointments on compassionate grounds. [7]

[8] Appointments on compassionate grounds are a welfare measure mooted by model employers primarily for the benefit of the employees. The said beneficent schemes particularly secure families of the employees on lower category posts who come from marginalized segments of the society. Compassionate ground appointments protect the said families already reeling under the weight of social inequities from the wages of financial destitution and uncertain future after the death of the earning member. The pre 16.07.2024 compassionate ground appointment scheme permitted appointment on Class IV posts. Consequently the dependents of deceased employees belonging to said marginalized classes could freely access the welfare measures contemplated in the earlier scheme for compassionate appointment. [8]

[9] Under the office memorandum dated 16.07.2024 even if additional time is given to acquire higher qualifications for appointment to Class III posts, the same will be an exercise in futility. The low educational levels of the petitioner and utter financial destitution render acquisition of higher qualifications in any reasonable time virtually impossible. The direction in the impugned order permitting the petitioner to acquire higher qualifications for Class III appointment is redundant being impossible to achieve, and seeks to cloak the actual denial of the benefit of compassionate appointment to the petitioner. The petitioner is only eligible for appointment on a Class IV post. [9]

[10] The regime of compassionate ground appointments in the respondent Corporation existing prior to the office memorandum/circular dated 16.07.2024 which permitted appointment on Class IV posts on compassionate grounds was more beneficial to the petitioner who belongs to the marginalized section of the society and is weighed down by other disabilities like lack of literacy and extreme poverty. [10]

[11] In light of the relevant judgement, the office memorandum dated 16.07.2024 shall apply prospectively and only to applications for grant of compassionate appointments which were filed after 16.07.2024. The case of the petitioner shall be covered by the earlier provisions for grant of compassionate ground appointments which permitted appointment on Class IV posts. The office memorandum dated 16.07.2024 shall not be applicable to the case of the petitioner. [11]

[12] There is another facet to the matter. The compassionate ground appointments are a welfare measure intended to enable the family of the deceased employee to immediately tide over the sudden financial crisis caused by the death of the earning member. [12]

[13] The object sought to be achieved by granting compassionate appointments is to support families left in penurious condition after the premature death of the sole breadwinner, particularly in hand-to-mouth situations below the poverty line struggling with basic expenses, distinguishing from mere reduction in living standards. [13] (!)

[14] Class IV appointments made on compassionate grounds satisfy the aforesaid tests more creditably than appointments on higher posts. [14]

[15] The authorities below misdirected themselves in law by applying the office memorandum dated 16.07.2024 to the case of the petitioner even though she is liable to be considered under the previous scheme for appointment on a Class IV post on compassionate grounds. [15]

[16] The impugned order dated 22.04.2025 is liable to be set aside and is set aside. [16]

[17] The petitioner is held entitled to be considered for appointment on Class IV post on compassionate ground. [17]

[18] Matter is remitted to the respondents to process the appointment of the petitioner within a period of three months and pass appropriate orders consistent with the observations made in this judgement. [18]

[19] The writ petition is allowed. [19]

Result: Writ petition allowed. Petitioner entitled to consideration for Class IV post under pre-16.07.2024 scheme. [19]

Note: This is the complete judgment text extracted and compiled for reference. Copy-paste into a document for use. No physical download available in this interface. (!) (!) [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!)