Compassionate appointments for dependants must adhere to rules applicable at the time of the breadwinner's death, ensuring immediate assistance in times of financial crisis.

JUDGMENT :

Ajit Kumar, J.

1. Heard Sri Seemant Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, learned Additional Chief Standing appearing for the State-respondents and perused the records.

2. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioners have prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 17.10.2019, whereby the petitioners were declared ‘unsuccessful’ in the test of ‘Stenography’ and their claims have been rejected.

3. At present, learned counsel submits that petitioners are only pressing for relief no.3, according to which, petitioners have prayed that their candidature may be considered for compassionate appointment as per Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying-in-Harness (11^th Amendment) Rules, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules 2014’).

4. Brief facts of the case are that father/husband of the respective petitioners, as the case may be, died-in-harness in respective years given in paragraph 6 which is reproduced hereinunder:

“That the father/husband of the petitioners died-in-harness on dates like 17.07.2013, 07.12.2013, 19.04.2009, 28.05.2012, 21.06.2008, 03.07.2003, 03.02.2011, 28.03.2013, 12.10.2010, 12.05.2011, 22.05.2009, 11.08.2012, 10.01.2009, 10.10.2010 and 27.06.2006 in so far as it relates to petitioner No.1 to petitioner No.15.”

5. Since they were the sole bread-earner, their respective families suddenly landed in a huge financial crisis and, hence, there arose a need for compassionate appointment to be claimed by their respective dependants. In the circumstances, they all applied for compassionate appointment before the respondent-Establishment as per the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Rules, 1974’) against suitable posts and by the time their applications could have been accorded consideration, the State Government framed new rules namely the Uttar Pradesh Police Ministerial, Accounts and Confidential Assistant Cadres Service Rules , 2015 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules, 2015) vide its Gazette Notification dated 23.07.2015, wherein Rule 10(3) provided appointment against the post of Sub-Inspector (Confidential), a minimum eligibility criteria for dying-in-harness purposes was ‘Speed of 25 words per minute in Hindi Typing’ and ‘80 words per minute in Shorthand’ and a candidate who applies for appointment, should also possess ‘O’ Level Computer Certificate’ issued by DOEACC/ NIELIT.

6. It further transpires that Rules, 2015 were made applicable by the respondents, but it did not force for necessary requirements of ‘O Level Computer Certificate’ issued by DOEACC/ NIELIT. The petitioners upon coming to know that their candidature for the purposes of compassionate appointment were being subjected to the procedure prescribed under Rules, 2015 coupled with the eligibility criteria prescribed therein, they rushed to this Court by filing a writ petition being Writ-A No.5039 of 2016 ( Ajeet Kumar and 7 others Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others ) and Writ- A No.9045 of 2016 ( Jitendra Kumar Yadav and 6 others Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others ), which were allowed finally with a direction to the authorities to accord due consideration to the candidature of the petitioners for compassionate appointment in terms of old rules.

7. The said co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ-A No.5039 of 2016 has set aside the order dated 13.01.2016, by which the respondents held the petitioners ‘not to be eligible’ as per Rules, 2015. Re