Allahabad High Court
Neeraj vs High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad ... on 20 February, 2025
Author: Alok Mathur
Bench: Alok Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:12314
Court No. - 6
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1989 of 2025
Petitioner :- Neeraj
Respondent :- High Court Of Judicature At Allahabad Thru. Registrar General And 2 Others
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vaibhav Mishra,Alok Trivedi
Counsel for Respondent :- Gaurav Mehrotra
Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.
1. Heard Sri Alok Trivedi, learned counsel for petitioner as well as Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for respondents.
2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that father of the petitioner, namely, Late Chandra Pal was a regular and confirmed Class-IV employee working on the post of Process Server in District Court Hardoi and died on 17.11.2023 during his service. Subsequent to the death of his father, the petitioner has moved an application for appointment of the petitioner under the U.P. Recruitment Dependent of Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1974). It is in pursuance of the application of the petitioner that his candidature was duly considered and he was appointed on Class-IV post by means of order dated 17.11.2023.
3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner possesses all essential qualifications for being appointed on a Class-III post inasmuch as he had passed his intermediate examination CCC Computer Certificate and was also proficient in typing with required speed of 30 and 25 words per minute respectively which are required for being appointed on Class-III post.
4. It has further been submitted that due to the fact that after death of his father the petitioner family had fallen into financial penury due to which the petitioner had accepted the appointment of Class-IV post which was offered to him. It has been submitted that subsequently by means of letter dated 07.07.2023, the Registrar General of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad had sent a letter to all the District and Sessions Judge of the State of Uttar Pradesh regarding reconsideration / upgradation on compassionate appointment already given in Sub-Ordinate Courts since 04.02.2022.
5. According to the letter dated 07.07.2023, the petitioner also obtains a right for being duly considered an appointed on a higher post than what he was appointed initially. He submits that it is by means of impugned order dated 11.11.2024 the District Judge, Hardoi has illegally and arbitrarily rejected the application of the petitioner complying with the recommendations of the Administrative Committee constituted by him. He submits that even though the appointment was made on Class-IV post but the respondents should have looked into the qualification of the petitioner and they should have offered him a Class-III post and even if it was not done at the initial stage yet the same could have been done by the respondents in compliance of the decision taken by the High Court as communicated to the District and Sessions Judge by the Registrar General of this Court by his letter dated 07.07.2023.
6. Lastly, it has been stated that it is in pursuance of the letter dated 07.07.2023, 97 persons were duly considered for up-gradation but the petitioner fairly submitted that he is not aware if any deceased person who was holding a Class-IV post his dependent was offered or appointed on a Class-III post.
7. Sri Gaurav Mehrotra, learned counsel for respondent on the other hand has opposed the writ petition. He has submitted that firstly with regard to the definition of suitable post as occurring in Clause-5 of Rules of 1974 was subject matter of consideration by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and others Vs. Premlata, 2022 (1) SCC 30 as well as Suneel Kumar Vs. State of Uttar Prdesh and Others, 2022 (17) SCC 280, the Supreme Court had held that suitable appointment in Rule 5 must be understood with reference to the post held by the deceased employee and further observed that the superior qualifications held by dependent cannot determine the scope of the word 'suitable employment', paragraph No. 9 & 10 of the said judgment are quoted hereinbelow for ready reference
"9. This is a case where the father of the appellant was working as a Sweeper. Undoubtedly, the appellant is qualified (according to him) and in the said sense is suitable for being appointed as a Gram Panchayat Officer. The death of the employee in this case took place not too far away, namely, it took place on 23.11.2016. Therefore, this is not a case where the link between the date of the death and the time for consideration of the matter by this Court has snapped. We must not be oblivious to the fact that the deceased employee was a Sweeper.
10. At the same time, as far as the question relating to the entitlement as it were of the appellant to be considered to the post of Gram Panchayat Officer is concerned, it is without doubt a post borne in Class-III. The father of the appellant was working as a Sweeper borne in Class-IV post. We have noticed the view taken by this Court in Premlata (supra). In other words, the law as declared is to the effect that the words "suitable employment" in Rule 5 must be understood with reference to the post held by the deceased employee. The superior qualification held by a dependent cannot determine the scope of the words "suitable employment".
8. The aforesaid judgments were also duly considered by this Court in the case of Rajnish Kuamr Vs. Stateof U.P. and Others (Writ A No. 6723 of 2022) where this Court has also noticed the aforesaid judgment of the Supreme Court and held that in case a deceased employee was holding a Class-IV post, his dependents could not be appointed on a Class-III post, relevant portion quoted as under:-
"4. Learned Standing counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the writ petition and submits that the definition of "suitable post" defined in Rule 5 of the Rules of 1974 has been interpreted by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. and Others Vs. Premlata, Civil Appeal No. 6003 of 2021 (decided on 05.10.2021). In the said case Supreme Court while setting aside the judgment of High Court where the High Court had held hat suitable post under clause 5 of the Rules of 1974 would mean any post suitable according to the qualification for the post of the candidate. Hon'ble Supreme Court, on the other hand, has observed that such an interpretation would defeat the very purpose of compassionate appointment under Dying in Harness Rules and held that suitable post has to be interpreted with regard to the post held by deceased government servant.
5. Subsequently the judgment of Prem Lata (Supra) was further considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Suneel Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others passed in Civil Appeal No.5038 of 2022 (decided on 02.08.2022). The finding of Supreme Court are quoted hereinbelow:-
"11. It is clear that the Annexure P-1 does not represent statutory Rules. We do not think we should be persuaded to take a different view as things stand. We cannot eclipse the dimension that the whole purport of the scheme of compassionate appointment is to reach immediate relief to the bereaved family. In such circumstances, the meaning placed on the words "suitable employment" bearing in mind the post held by the deceased employee cannot be said to be an unreasonable or incorrect view."
7. It is noticed that in pursuance of the application made by the petitioner for appointment under Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 the competent authority has appointed the petitioner on a class IV post of Sangrah Anusewak. It is after a period of ten years that he wants that his appointment should be considered on any class III post. It is further noticed that the deceased father of the petitioner was working on class IV post of Collection Peon and consequently even if the petitioner is qualified for appointment on a higher post of class III as per his qualification, he can be appointed on a post which is equivalent to the post held by his father at the time of his death. Undoubtedly, the father of the petitioner was a class IV employee and consequently there is no infirmity in the appointment of the petitioner having appointed on the post of Sangrah Anusewak (class IV). Even otherwise, the petitioner has duly accepted his appointment in 2013 and continuously working on the said post for the last nine years, he cannot turn back and claim appointment on a higher post. Even otherwise, law in this regard has been clearly laid down by Supreme Court in the case of Prem Lata (supra) and Suneel Kumar (supra)."
9. It has further been submitted that once the dependent of the deceased government servant has been granted an appointment then the Rules of 1974 would be deemed to have exhausted and no further benefit of the said Rules can be granted to such an employee. He submits that the beneficial piece of rules providing for appointment to the dependents of the persons who have died in harness is a once time measure and after the appointment is granted, no further service benefits is granted to such a dependent of deceased government servant thereafter and accordingly submits that there is no endless compassion as per the Rules.
10. In support of his submissions, he has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Umrao Singh, 1994 (6) SCC 560, relevant portion quoted as under:-
"9. Since both the sides relied on Naresh Kumar Bali's case (supra), we will now refer to the same. We had indicated our mind in that very ruling in paragraph 15 of the said judgment. It reads as under:
Though the respondent claimed that he had applied for the post of a teacher the Subordinate Service Selection Board had not chosen him for the post of a Teacher because he did not have the requisite qualification. In fact, the respondent did not object to his appointment as a Clerk and his claim for consideration for the post of Teacher was one year after his appointment. Thus, the appointment on compassionate ground as per the scheme had been completed. (emphasis supplied)
10. Therefore, once the right has consummated as we indicated earlier, any further or second consideration for a higher post on the ground of compassion would not arise."
11. Similar view was expressed in the case of I.G. (Karmik) and Others Vs. Prahalad Mani Tripathi, 2007 (6) SCC 162, relevant portion quoted as under:-
"Public employment is considered to be a wealth. It in terms of the constitutional scheme cannot be given on descent. When such an exception has been carved out by this Court, the same must be strictly complied with. Appointment on compassionate ground is given only for meeting the immediate hardship which is faced by the family by reason of the death of the bread earner. When an appointment is made on compassionate ground, it should be kept confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve, the idea being not to provide for endless compassion.
In State of Rajasthan v. Umrao Singh [(1994) 6 SCC 560], this Court has categorically stated that once the right is consummated, any further or second consideration for higher post on the ground of compassion would not arise.
Respondent, thus, could be offered an appointment only to the post for which he was suitable.
Furthermore, Appellant accepted the said post without any demur whatsoever. He, therefore, upon obtaining appointment in a lower post could not have been permitted to turn round and contend that he was entitled for a higher post although not eligible therefor. A person cannot be appointed unless he fulfils the eligibility criteria. Physical fitness being an essential eligibility criteria, the Superintendent of Police could not have made any recommendation in violation of the rules. Nothing has been shown before us that even the petitioner came within the purview of any provisions containing grant of relaxation of such qualification. Whenever, a person invokes such a provision, it would be for him to show that the authority is vested with such a power."
12. Aforesaid judgments were noticed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shiv Dutt Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2025 SCC OnLine All 252
"20. The other issue, which would arise for consideration, would be as to whether the petitioner, having once availed the benefit of appointment on compassionate grounds on the post of Chaukidar/Chaprasi, could claim appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher again on compassionate grounds.
28. The position in law with regard to non-entitlement of appointment on compassionate grounds more than once, is fairly well settled. The petitioner was, therefore, not entitled to claim the benefit of appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher on compassionate grounds, having availed the said benefit earlier. The legal position regarding the other point that once the basic qualifications for the post in question, are not fulfilled, no claim can be made for appointment, also needs no further elaboration, as it is well settled that in case where the basic qualifications are lacking, the person concerned cannot claim a right for appointment to the post in question."
13. From the aforesaid judgments, it is clear that the petitioner was granted the benefit of the Rules of 1974 and appointed on Class-IV post. Considering the peculiar facts of the present case and considering that father of the petitioner was working on Class-IV post, the suitable post in the present case would also be a Class-IV post and accordingly in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Premlata (Supra) and Suneel Kumar(Supra), the petitioner could not have been granted appointment on Class-III post.
14. Apart from the above, this Court further noticed that once an order of appointment has been granted, the petitioner could not claim further up-gradation to Class-III post. This Court also finds it necessary to interpret the letter of the Registrar General dated 07.07.2023. Even if it has been submitted that number of appointments were made by the High Court looking into the fact that during Covid - 19 Pandemi,c a large number of employees had died and their dependents were granted appointments. Even while appointments were granted looking into the urgency of the situation, the said appointments would also have to conform to law and also the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Suneel Kumar (Supra) and Premlata (Supra) would have to be followed by the High Court also.
15. It may be that in case the deceased government servants were working on Class-III post, then certainly the dependents would be entitled to a Class-III post or a class-IV post whichever is available subject to fulfillment of the requisite qualifications. This Court has no doubt that the said judgments are binding on the High Court on administrative side.
16. It is in the aforesaid reasons that the petitioner cannot be granted appointment on Class-III post even relied upon the letter of Registrar General dated 07.07.2023. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition lacks merits and is accordingly dismissed.
(Alok Mathur, J.)
Order Date :- 20.2.2025
Ravi/
