Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 933 (ALL)

Atul Kumar v. State of U. P.

2025-07-14

MANJU RANI CHAUHAN

body2025
JUDGMENT : Manju Rani Chauhan,J. 1. The petitioner, a dependent of an Assistant Teacher who died in- harness, has preferred instant writ petition challenging an order dated 30 th May, 2025 passed by the third respondent[District Basic Education Officer, Ballia], whereby claim for appointment on compassionate ground has been denied on the ground that his candidature does not fulfil the requirements as enshrined under the Uttar Padesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. 2. Facts of the case are that petitioner’s mother late Savitri Devi was working as an Assistant Teacher in a Junior High School, Barauli, Block Nagra, District Ballia. She died-in harness on 06 th July, 2020. The petitioner moved a representation before the third respondent on 29 th September, 2021 for his appointment on compassionate ground on the post of peon, however, it failed to elicit any response. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner preferred a writ petition before this Court i.e. Writ-A No. 1278 of 2025, Atul Kumar v. State of U.P. and others . Said writ petition was disposed of by order dated 04 th February, 2025 with a direction that if the required papers and documents are submitted by the petitioner within one month, the third respondent shall take decision thereon. Pursuant thereto, the impugned order dated 30 th May, 2025 has been passed whereby the claim for compassionate appointment of the petitioner has been rejected, which is under challenge in the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner fulfils all the requisite qualifications for compassionate appointment, due to death of his mother, as required under the Uttar Padesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974[The Rules, 1974]. He has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure-10, which is a notification of Government of Uttar Pradesh dated 27 th December, 2022, introducing the thirteenth amendment i.e. the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependent of Government Servants Dying in Harness (Thirteenth Amendment) Rules, 2022. Emphasizing thereupon, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner’s mother passed away on 06 th July, 2020, therefore, the order impugned passed on the basis of the aforementioned Rules, is illegal as the said Rules do not have retrospective effect. 4. Emphasizing thereupon, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner’s mother passed away on 06 th July, 2020, therefore, the order impugned passed on the basis of the aforementioned Rules, is illegal as the said Rules do not have retrospective effect. 4. It has further been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner lives separately and has no connection with his father and sister, thus, he is entitled for being appointed on compassionate ground as his mother died in harness. He next argued that the order impugned has been passed without affording any notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents has made vehement submission that the petitioner’s father and sister both are Government Servants and in view of the requisite conditions for appointment on compassionate ground as stipulated under Rule-5 of the Rules, 1974, which enumerates that one member of deceased employee’s family shall be given employment, in case spouse of the deceased Government Servant is not already employed under the Central Government or a State Government or a Corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government or a State Government, the petitioner is not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground after the demise of his mother who died in harness. 6. It is an admitted fact that petitioner’s father is an Assistant Teacher in a Primary School run by the Board of Basic Education, U.P. and the whole object of granting compassionate appointment is to provide succour to the indigent family of a deceased employee so as to tide over the sudden crisis and financial destitution. 7. The Apex Court in the case of Steel Authority of India Limited v. Madhusudan Das & Ors., (2008) 15 SCC 560 , has remarked that compassionate appointment is a concession and not a right and the criteria laid down in the Rules must be satisfied by all aspirants. 8. In the case of The Director of Treasuries in Karnataka & Anr. v. V. Somyashree, AIR 2021 SC 5620 , the Supreme Court has observed that dependents of the deceased Government employee are made eligible by virtue of the policy on compassionate appointment and they must fulfil the norms laid down by the State’s policy. The Court has further held that the norms prevailing on the date of consideration of the application should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment. The Court has further held that the norms prevailing on the date of consideration of the application should be the basis for consideration of claim for compassionate appointment. 9. Following the aforementioned judgements of Apex Court, a Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Ravi Kumar Jeph v. Joint Director, Office of the Chief Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise (Jaipur Zone), Jaipur, Rajasthan & another, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4928 of 2020 : 2023:RJ-JP:41338-DB has held as under: “18. ... the principles pertaining to the nature of claim made by the dependents, its consideration based on the parameters as laid down in the relevant Rules, that also with the emphasis that the applicant- dependent must strictly fall within the parameters as on the date of the death of government servant, are well established besides the fact that the appointment is neither a right nor an alternative source of recruitment.” (emphasis supplied) 10. The aforementioned judgement of Rajasthan High Court in Ravi Kumar Jeph ( supra ) , was challenged before the Apex Court by means of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 25916 of 2025,Ravi Kumar Jeph v. Joint Director & Anr. . The Apex Court vide its judgement dated 17.06.2025 has dismissed the petition on the ground of delay as well as on merits, observing that there is no ground to interfere with the order challenged therein. 11. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding non-applicability of Rule-5 of the Rules, 1974 in petitioner’s case and not giving opportunity of hearing before passing the order impugned, have no merit acceptance. As regards, the condition under Rule-5 that one member of deceased employee’s family shall be given employment, in case spouse of the deceased Government Servant is not already employed under the Government establishment, exists since introduction of the Rules, 1974. Insofar as the opportunity of hearing is concerned, the petitioner had submitted all relevant documents before the authority along with his application dated 28 th February, 2025, but he failed to turn up for personal hearing while he was called on 04 th April, 2025. 12. Insofar as the opportunity of hearing is concerned, the petitioner had submitted all relevant documents before the authority along with his application dated 28 th February, 2025, but he failed to turn up for personal hearing while he was called on 04 th April, 2025. 12. In view of the aforesaid, admittedly the petitioner does not fulfil the criteria as framed under Rule-5 of the Rules, 1974 as his father (spouse of deceased employee) is an Assistant Teacher in a Primary School run by the U.P. Basic Education Board and in view of the settled position of law, discussed in preceding paragraphs, it is inevitable the dependent must strictly fall within the parameters as on the date of death of government servant and must fulfil the norms laid down by policy of State Government, for consideration of employment on compassionate ground. 13. I do not find it a fit case to be interfered with. The writ petition lacks merit, hence stands dismissed. 14. No order as to costs.