A registered Will does not affect eligibility for compassionate appointment; dependency and family welfare are the primary considerations under the U.P. Rules of 1974.

JUDGMENT :

MANISH MATHUR, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite party Nos.1, 2 & 3.

2. In view of order being passed, notice to opposite party No.4 stands dispensed with.

3. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 18.11.2025 whereby petitioner's application for compassionate appointment in terms of U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 [here-in-after referred to as 'Rules of 1974'] has been rejected on the ground that it is impossible to ascertain heirship in view of a registered Will in favour of petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that he is the brother of deceased-Ranjeet Kumar who passed away in harness on 27.09.2025. It is submitted that although opposite party No.4, Smt. Aruna Devi is the wife of deceased, but had a strained relationship with the deceased due to which she was separated and it is in fact petitioner who was taking care of the deceased alongwith aged parents. It is submitted that since petitioner is unemployed he would have a preferential right for compassionate appointment over opposite party No.4 but this is an aspect unconsidered in the impugned order despite the fact that there is a registered Will in favour of petitioner.

5. Learned State Counsel has been provided written instructions dated 08.01.2026, a copy of which is taken on record and on that basis, submits that petitioner as well as opposite party No.4 have claimed compassionate appointment in view of demise of late Ranjeet Kumar. It is submitted that although a registered Will in favour of the petitioner was produced but opposite party No.4 being the undivorced wife of deceased has also submitted an application and particularly in view of registered Will, it is difficult to ascertain the rights of either parties.

6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal of material on record, particularly impugned order, it is evident that upon demise of late Ranjeet Kumar, his wife Smt. Aruna Devi as well as petitioner being brother of deceased have putforth their claims for compassionate appointment. While petitioner is seeking claim on the basis of registered Will dated 19.06.2025, opposite party No.4 is claiming as wife of deceased.

7. The impugned order indicates that the concerned authority has not granted compassionate appointment to either of the parties on the ground that it is difficult to ascertain eligibility of either in view of conflicting documents.

8. For the purpose of providing compassionate appointment in terms of Rules of 1974, it is relevant that the person applying for same should come within the definition of 'family' as prescribed in Rule 2 (c) of the aforesaid Rules while a 'spouse' is indicated in Rule 2(c)(i) and 'unmarried brother' is indicated in Sub-Rule (iv) of the same Rules.

9. It is also relevant that Rule 4 indicates overriding effect of Rules of 1974 over any other Rules or orders and the process of recruitment is indicated in Rule - 5 thereof.

10. It is also relevant that in Rule - 7 of the Rules of 1974 procedure when more than one family member of deceased seeks employment has been indicated.

11. A perusal of Rule - 5 reveals that second proviso thereto clearly indicates that for purpose of entertaining application for compassionate appointment of a member of family of deceased, aspect of the said applicant being dependent of the deceased government servant is required. Rule - 6 indicates contents of application for employment and parti