Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1403 (ALL)

Deepak Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh

2025-12-10

MANJU RANI CHAUHAN

body2025
JUDGMENT : MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J. 1. Present writ petition has been filed challenging an order dated 26.07.2025 passed by respondent no. 3,[Executive Oficer, Nagar Palika Parishad, Farrukhabad] vide which claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected. 2. Placing brief facts of the case, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s father was working as a Safai Karamchari in Nagar Palika Parishad, Farrukhabad since 1991. He died-in-harness on 20.05.2023, leaving behind his wife i.e. the petitioner’s mother and one son i.e. the petitioner, as his legal heirs. The petitioner moved an application for his appointment on compassionate ground, on 11.07.2023. As the petitioner’s father was suffering from a chronic ailment, therefore, his mother who was also working as Safari Karmchari in Gram Panchayat Dilawarpur, had to take leave to take care of her husband. After demise of her husband, when the petitioner’s mother re-joined her services, she was pestered and harassed for her alleged unauthorized absence and was compelled to tender her resignation, which was accepted on 31.05.2025. The matter regarding compassionate appointment of the petitioner was still pending, therefore, he moved an application before the respondent authority on 31.05.2024 mentioning about the financial crisis that arose due to resignation of his mother, however, without considering the said circumstances, the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected by respondent no. 3 in an arbitrary manner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the object and purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide assistance to the bereaved family of the deceased employee, who has suffered a shock and is facing financial crisis due to sudden demise of the sole bread earner. In numerous cases, the Courts have interfered with for creation of posts to meet out the financial crisis of such families and to consider the claim for compassionate appointment. He further submits that the application dated 11.07.2023 was not considered at the relevant point of time and it is after the resignation of petitioner’s mother on 31.05.2025, the claim which was pending consideration, was rejected only on the ground that the petitioner’s mother was a Government Servant, and without considering the current situation/ status of the family pertaining to the financial status and the crisis which they are suffering. Thus, the impugned order is bad, unreasonable and unjustifiable in the eyes of law. 4. Thus, the impugned order is bad, unreasonable and unjustifiable in the eyes of law. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents could not dispute the aforesaid facts. 5. I have heard Sri Sameer Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Anuradha Sundaram, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondent nos. 1 & 2, Sri Atul Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 3 and perused the record. 6. In the present case, the petitioner’s father passed away while in service in the year 2023. The petitioner moved an application for compassionate appointment on 11.07.2023. Although the petitioner’s mother was employed as a Safai Karamchari at the time of the death of the petitioner’s father, she subsequently tendered her resignation on 31.05.2023. However, the impugned order has been passed sans considering the changed circumstances which were prevailing at the time of consideration by the authority. 7. The principal argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that once petitioner’s mother resigned and the family was left without any source of subsistence, the relevant consideration is the financial condition of the family at the time of examination of the application, and not merely the employment status of the dependent at the time of death. This hyper-technical view denying relief would defeat the very object of the compassionate appointment scheme under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974,[The Rules, 1974] which aims to provide immediate financial support to the bereaved family to prevent destitution. 8. The Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and others, (1994) 4 SCC 138 has categorically held that the object of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate succour to the bereaved family to save it from financial destitution. The test to be applied is the financial condition of the family, and not hyper- technical considerations. Similarly, in Canara Bank and another v. M. Mahesh Kumar, (2015) 7 SCC 412 the Court reiterated that the scheme must be interpreted in a manner that advances its purpose and mitigates the financial hardship of the dependents. 9. The Apex Court in the case of Balbir Kaur and another v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others, (2000) 6 SCC 493 has reiterated that the scheme of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate relief and cannot be applied in a manner defeating its humanitarian purpose. 10. 9. The Apex Court in the case of Balbir Kaur and another v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others, (2000) 6 SCC 493 has reiterated that the scheme of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate relief and cannot be applied in a manner defeating its humanitarian purpose. 10. Considering the changed circumstances in between the period from the date of death of the employee and the date of consideration for compassionate appointment, the Supreme Court in the case of Syed Khadim Hussain v. State of Bihar and others, (2006) 9 SCC 195 has observed that authority should consider the claim in light of subsequent eligibility and should not freeze the assessment at the date of death of the employee. 11. This Court in the case of Kusum Devi (Smt.) v. State of U.P. and others, (2001) 3 UPLBEC 2431 and the Rajasthan High Court in the case of Rekha Joshi v. State of Rajasthan and Ors., MANU/RH/0079/2018 have also held that where economic hardship persists, compassionate appointment cannot be denied on technical grounds. 12. In the present case, the petitioner's father died in harness in the year 2023. Although the petitioner's mother was employed as a Safai Karamchari at the time of the employee’s death, it is undisputed that she subsequently tendered her resignation, leaving the family without any assured source of livelihood. In such circumstances, the rejection of the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment on the sole ground that the mother was employed at the time of the demise is wholly unsustainable and contrary to the settled principles governing compassionate appointment. 13. The conditions prescribed for grant of compassionate appointment are required to be examined with reference to the circumstances prevailing on the date on which the competent authority considers the application, also, and not solely with reference to the situation prevailing on the date of death of the deceased employee. The underlying object of the scheme of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate succour to the bereaved family facing financial destitution owing to the untimely demise of the breadwinner. Therefore, where the eligibility conditions undergo a change prior to the consideration of the application, or where subsequent events materially alter the financial status of the family, the same must duly be taken into account. A mechanical or hyper- technical reliance on facts existing at the time of death alone would defeat the very object of the scheme. Therefore, where the eligibility conditions undergo a change prior to the consideration of the application, or where subsequent events materially alter the financial status of the family, the same must duly be taken into account. A mechanical or hyper- technical reliance on facts existing at the time of death alone would defeat the very object of the scheme. 14. In the present case, once the petitioner’s mother, who was employed as a Safai Karamchari, tendered her resignation during the pendency of the petitioner’s application, the competent authority was obliged to assess the claim afresh in light of the changed financial condition. The rejection of the petitioner’s application solely on the ground that the mother was employed on the date of death of the deceased employee is therefore legally unsustainable, being contrary to the benevolent purpose of the scheme as well as the settled principles governing compassionate appointment. 15. If the order impugned would have been passed, considering the petitioner’s application, prior to resignation of the petitioner’s mother, the case would have been different but consideration of the application after resignation of petitioner’s mother, places it in distinct situation, wherein the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment ought to have been considered. 16. This Court is of the considered view that the respondent- authority was required to assess the financial condition of the petitioner’s family existing at the time of consideration of the pending application for compassionate appointment. Once the petitioner’s mother had resigned and the family was left without any meaningful source of income, denial of the petitioner’s claim on the sole ground that she (petitioner’s mother) was employed at the time of death of her husband (petitioner’s father) is arbitrary, legally untenable, and defeats the very object of the compassionate appointment scheme. Thus, the impugned order is unsustainable. 17. The mere fact that one dependent was employed is not conclusive, and compassionate appointment cannot be denied if the employment was insufficient to alleviate the financial crisis or if the circumstances have subsequently changed. 18. In view of the above settled proposition of law, the object and purpose of the appointment made under the Rules, 1974, is frustrated by the order impugned dated 26.07.2025, hence it is set aside. The matter is remitted to respondent no. 18. In view of the above settled proposition of law, the object and purpose of the appointment made under the Rules, 1974, is frustrated by the order impugned dated 26.07.2025, hence it is set aside. The matter is remitted to respondent no. 3 to reconsider the claim of compassionate appointment of the petitioner, keeping in mind the observations made in this order and the fact that at present the petitioner’s mother is no longer in any Government service. The respondent no. 3 shall pass a fresh order, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. 19. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. 20. No order as to costs.