Shivam vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 12741 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Shivam vs State Of U.P. And 3 Others on 19 November, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:207247
 

 
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD 
 
WRIT - A No. - 20493 of 2022   
 
   Shivam    
 
  .....Petitioner(s)   
 
 Versus  
 
   State Of U.P. And 3 Others    
 
  .....Respondent(s)       
 
   
 
  
 
Counsel for Petitioner(s)   
 
:   
 
Siddharth Khare   
 
  
 
Counsel for Respondent(s)   
 
:   
 
C.S.C.   
 
     
 
 Court No. - 34
 
   
 
 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.     

1. Heard Shri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the writ petitioner as well as Shri S.K. Pal, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.

2. Since counter affidavit and rejoinder affidavit have been exchanged between the parties and they do not propose to file any further affidavit, thus, with the consent of the parties, the writ petition is being decided at the admission stage on the basis of the documents available on record.

3. The case of the writ petitioner is that the father of the writ petitioner, namely, Rajveer Singh, was posted as a Constable, who expired on 21.11.2005 leaving behind the writ petitioner and his mother, being the widow of the deceased. At the time of the death of the father of the writ petitioner, the writ petitioner was hardly five years old since the date of birth of the writ petitioner is 01.02.2000. Thereafter, post attainment of majority and successfully clearing the intermediate examination, the writ petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on the post of Constable on 29.09.2019. On 21.08.2020, the writ petitioner was required to appear before the respondents and the writ petitioner appeared and also submitted a medical certificate. Thereafter, papers of the writ petitioner was processed and eventually, a communication dated 19.07.2022 was issued along with a letter dated 12.07.2022 passed by the State Government rejecting the claim of the petitioner being time barred.

4. Questioning the said order, the present writ petition has been preferred.

5. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has sought to argue that the consideration which weighed with the authority while negating the claim of the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment on the premise that the claim set up by the writ petitioner for compassionate appointment is time barred cannot be sustained for the simple reason that on death of the father of the writ petitioner on 21.11.2005, the writ petitioner was only five years of age, thus it was virtually impossible for the writ petitioner to have applied for compassionate appointment. However, he attained majority in the year 2018 and on 29.09.2019, he has preferred an application seeking compassionate appointment. Thus, the question of delay would not come into play and further, the delay would be even liable to be condoned in that regard. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner seeks to rely upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 4755 of 2022, Ganesh Shankar Shukla vs. State of U.P., decided on 15.07.2022, to buttress his submission. Further submission is that the claim of the writ petitioner ought to have been considered on the merits of the matter in that regard.

6. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submits that whatever might be, the appointment on compassionate ground is an exception to general rule of appointment and the writ petitioner does not possess a fundamental right to be accorded appointment as the right which is conferred upon the writ petitioner is for consideration. He however submits that the claim of the writ petitioner needs to be revisited by the State Government in view of the provisions contained under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.

7. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record. The facts are not in issue. It is not in dispute that the father of the writ petitioner was working as a Constable expired on 21.11.2005 and the writ petitioner was 5 years old on the date of death of his father, as his date of birth is 01.02.2000. Thus, on attaining majority, he preferred an application for compassionate appointment on 29.09.2019, which came to be rejected by the impugned order. Rule 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 reads as under:-

"5. Recruitment of a member of the family of the deceased.--(1) In case a Government servant dies in harness after the commencement of these rules and the 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, one member of his family who 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 shall, on making an application for the purposes, be given a suitable employment in Government service on a post except the post which is within the purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, in relaxation of the normal recruitment rules if such person-

(i) fulfills the educational qualifications prescribed for the post,

(ii) is otherwise qualified for Government service; and

(iii) makes the application for employment within five years from the date of the death of the Government servant:

Provided that where the State Government is satisfied that the time limit fixed for making the application for employment causes undue hardship in any particular case, it may dispense with or relax the requirement as it may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner.

Provided further that for the purpose of the aforesaid proviso, the person concerned shall explain the reasons and give proper justification in writing regarding the delay caused in making the application for employment after the expiry of the time limit fixed for making the application for employment alongwith the necessary documents/proof in support of such delay and the Government shall, after taking into consideration all the facts leading to such delay take the appropriate decision.

(2) As far as possible, such an employment should be given in the same department in which the deceased Government servant was employed prior to his death.

(3) Every appointment made under sub-rule (1) shall be subject to the condition that the person appointed under sub-rule (1) shall maintain other members of the family of deceased Government servant, who were dependent on the deceased Government servant immediately before his death and are unable to maintain themselves.

(4) Where the person appointed under sub-rule (1) neglects or refuses to maintain a person to whom he is liable to maintain under sub-rule (3), his services may be terminated in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, as amended from time to time."

8. Once it is not disputed that on the date of death of the father of the writ petitioner, the writ petitioner was minor and he, after clearing the intermediate examination, applied for compassionate appointment on the post of Constable, then the authorities were under obligation to have considered the said aspect of the matter.

9. In Ganesh Shankar Shukla (supra), the following was observed:-

"Leave granted.

The challenge in the present appeal is to an order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on 26.10.2021, whereby an intra-court appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 04.08.2021 was dismissed, wherein the appellant had claimed appointment on compassionate grounds.

The facts of the present case show complete apathy on the part of the State in dealing with the minor children of the deceased Geeta Devi, who was working as a teacher. She died in harness on 13.03.2003. Sh. Kripa Shankar Shukla, father of the appellant, died earljer. At the time of death of the mother, the appellant was five years old, whereas his. elder sister was eight years old.

The appellant and his sister had to invoke the jurisdiction of the State Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow, for release of pension on account of death of Geeta Devi. It shows that even after the death of Geeta Devi, the minor children were not paid the pension leading them into penury. The order was passed by the Tribunal on 31.03.2016, but still payment of pension was not made. The order was implemented only in the year 2018, after filing of contempt petition.

The appellant applied for compassionate appointment on 17.02.2020, which request was declined. The learned counsel for the respondent State argued that the compassionate appointment is not the source of recruitment and is to be offered to meet the emergent financial distress suffered by the family. Since the appellant has survived for 17 years after the death of his mother, therefore, the appellant has lost the right to claim compassionate appointment. The learned counsel for the State also relies upon Rule 5 of U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Govt. Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, which contemplates the time of five years to make an application to seek compassionate appointment, though there is a provision for relaxation of such time limit. In fact, both the children of Geeta Devi continued to be minor even after five years.

Therefore, the rigour of Rule 5 cannot be extended in the case of the present appellant who was minor at the time of death of his mother, the father having died earlier.

forIn these circumstances, even when the appellant had survived on account of the financial support of the maternal grandparents, the respondent is not justified in raising a technical plea of delay in seeking appointment on compassionate grounds in the facts

Some of the Judgments have been referred to by the learned counsel for the respondent-State, but it is the facts of each case, which are relevant. The facts of the present case show total inhumane approach in dealing with two minor children of the deceased. The delay was on account of the fact that they had no money, except the bare survival provided by the grandparents.

Consequently, the present appeal is allowed in view of the peculiar hard facts of the case. The appellant to apply for compassionate appointment to the State, giving his educational qualifications within one week. Considering the said application, the respondent-State will make appointment within next two months. Pending interlocutory application (s), if any, is/are disposed of."

10. Since the only consideration which weighed the respondents in negating the claim of the writ petitioner was that the claim of the writ petitioner was barred by delay, thus, his claim could not have been considered, is not tenable in the eyes of law, as something more was required regarding examination on the merits of the claim of the writ petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is being decided in the following terms:-

(i) The order dated 12.7.2022 passed by the State Government and 19.7.2022 passed by the Senior Superintendent of Police, Ghaziabad, are set aside.

(ii) The matter stands remitted back to the State Government to consider the case of the writ petitioner on the merits bearing in mind the entitlement and admissibility in that regard treating the application for compassionate appointment within time, within a period of four months.

11. The writ petition is disposed of.

(Vikas Budhwar,J.)

November 19, 2025

Gurpreet Singh