Allahabad High Court
Raghvendra Dubey vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 27 October, 2025
Author: Manish Mathur
Bench: Manish Mathur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:66262
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
WRIT - A No. - 2702 of 2022
Raghvendra Dubey
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 6 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Ashish Mishra Atal
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
C.S.C.
Court No. - 7
HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.
1. Heard Mr. Ashish Mishra learned counsel for petitioner and learned State counsel for opposite parties.
2. Petition has been filed challenging orders dated 9th March 2021 and 14th December 2021 rejecting petitioner's application for compassionate appointment in accordance with U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, primarily on the ground of the application having been submitted after more than five years of the date of demise of the employee in harness.
3. It has been submitted that the petitioner's father, late Ramjanam Dubey, passed away in harness on 31st December 2005 and at that time the petitioner was minor. It is submitted that in view of demise of the sole bread earner of the family, petitioner's mother, Smt. Saroj Dubey, submitted an application dated 12th November 2007 for retiral benefits as well as seeking compassionate appointment. The said application was replied to vide letter dated 2nd December 2007 stating that compassionate appointment can not be provided to petitioner since he was minor and can submit an application upon attaining majority. It is submitted that therefore on attaining majority, an application for compassionate appointment was submitted on 10th September 2018 which has been rejected by means of the impugned order primarily on the ground of delay as well as no undue hardship being established.
4. It is submitted that once the rules particularly proviso to Rule 5 of Rules 1974 specifically provides for an application to be submitted once the dependant attains majority, the application could not have been rejected on that ground. It is also submitted that the opposite parties have not at all considered the undue hardship which was being suffered by the family and only a bland observation has been made. He has placed reliance on judgment rendered by Full Bench of this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Dubey and others versus State of U.P. and others, 2015 AIR (All) 47 as well as judgment rendered in the case of Mohd. Zamil Ahmed versus State of Bihar and others, (2016) 12 SCC 342.
5. Learned State counsel has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner on the basis of counter affidavit and submits that the application was preferred by petitioner after more than seven years and eight months after demise of his father and therefore no cogent ground was made out for grant of relaxation in terms of Rules of 1974. It is also submitted that since pension and other dues admissible to petitioner's mother was already paid, no undue hardship was made out and therefore the impugned orders do not warrant any interference.
6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of the material on record, it is evident and admitted that the petitioner's father passed away in harness on 31st December 2005. Admittedly, petitioner was minor at that time and on application submitted by petitioner's mother, the letter dated 2nd December 2007 was issued by the opposite parties,specifically indicating that petitioner may approach the authorities upon attaining majority. It is thus evident that the opposite parties themselves reserved the right of petitioner for applying for compassionate appointment upon attaining majority. The aforesaid aspect is clearly discernible also in view of proviso to Rule 5 of the Rules of 1974 which is as follows:-
""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-fulfils the educational qualifications prescribed for the post, is otherwise qualified for Government service; and 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 along with 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 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."
7. The said aspect has also been considered by division bench of this court in the case of Sudhir Kumar Mishra versus State of U.P. (Special Appeal No. 175 of 2016) in the following manner:-
" 21. In the instant case, the petitioner submitted that when his father died he was only 4 years old and his mother informed the department that she would make application in prescribed from only when he attained majority. The department negatived the representation in this matter taking stand that the application was not made within prescribed period. However, the petitioner's request for compassionate appointment was made soon after appellant attained majority. Under Rule 5 the time limit within which the dependant of the deceased employee is to be accommodated is fixed as five year. This period can be extended under proviso to Rule 5 where burden of proving the fact that compassionate circumstances continued to exist even till date was on the petitioner himself which he has successfully discharged in this case. There is sufficient evidence of the petitioner having aged and ailing mother, two unmarried sisters, the family having pension as the only source of livelihood, the agricultural land being barren causing nugatory income of about 9000/- per year, which appeared quite insufficient to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which is being faced by the family after the death of his father.
22. On the basis of objective considerations founded on the disclosures made by the petitioner in this case for compassionate appointment and having considered the reasons for the delay, we are of the opinion that undue hardship within the meaning of the first proviso to Rule 5 of the Rules would be caused to the petitioner and his family by the application of the time limit of five years. The expression 'undue hardship' has not been defined in the Rules. Undue hardship would necessarily postulate a consideration of relevant facts and circumstances of the case. In view the income of the family, its financial condition, the extent of dependency and marital status of its members, its liabilities, the terminal benefits received by the family; the age, together with the nugatory income from any other sources in this case, we are of the view that the family continues to suffer financial distress and hardship occasioned by the death of the bread winner. Considering the penurious condition of the family, it appears to be one of the rarest of rare cases where due to exceptional circumstances the family needs the extraordinary remedy to elate the condition of family. It would be appropriate to deal with the case of the petitioner in a just and equitable manner. "
8. It is also evident that impugned order has been passed rejecting petitioner's application on the twin grounds of delay as well as no undue hardship being established.
9. So far as the first ground of rejection is concerned, it is evident that the authority concerned has not considered the aspect that admittedly petitioner was minor at the time his father passed away in harness and therefore he could have applied only upon being eligible for such appointment in terms of his age. The authority has also ignored the aspect that the department itself had granted with liberty to petitioner for applying for compassionate appointment upon attaining majority vide letter dated 2nd December, 2007. It was therefore incumbent upon the authority concerned to have considered the aspect as to whether the delay in light of aforesaid was required to be condoned or not.
10. In such circumstances, the rejection of petitioner's application on the ground of being belated is clearly vitiated.
11. So far as the second ground is concerned, only a bland averment has been made in the impugned order that petitioner's family does not suffer any undue hardship. In the counter-affidavit, the reasoning has sought to be made better on the ground that post-retiral benefits including family pension were provided to petitioner's mother for family maintenance and therefore undue hardship was not established. However from a perusal of impugned order and the counter-affidavit, it is not evident that the opposite parties have considered the amount of income being provided to the family of deceased and whether it would be adequate to meet their expenses. 12. Considering aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it was thus incumbent upon the opposite parties to have arrived at a subjective satisfaction with regard to undue hardship being faced by the family of deceased by specifically adverting to the income being made available to the family vis-a-vis their reasonable expenses. The said aspect has already been enunciated by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal versus State of Haryana and others, (1994) 4 SCC 138.
13. In view of aforesaid, it is thus evident that impugned orders have been passed in a cursory manner ignoring statutory provisions and law settled on the matter.
14. In view thereof, the impugned orders dated 9th March, 2021, and 14th December, 2021 are hereby quashed by issuance of writ in the nature of Certiorari. A further writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued commanding the opposite party No. 1 i.e. Principal Secretary, Home, Civil Secretariat, Lucknow to consider petitioner's application for condoning delay and for relaxation in the limitation expressed in the Rules of 1974.
15. In case such relaxation is made, the opposite parties shall also consider the aspect of hardship being suffered by petitioner's family.
16. Orders with regard to the same shall be passed by the appropriate authorities within a period of eight weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon the concerned authority.
17. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs.
(Manish Mathur,J.)
October 27, 2025
prabhat
