# Ache Lal v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 1 ILRA 970
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-01-12
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 14910 of 2025
- **Bench:** Manish Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/ache-lal-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54087
- **Pages:** 4

## Text

970 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
amount to re-agitation of the very same issue and a second round of litigation, which is
impermissible in law.

5. In a catena of judgements, the Supreme Court has categorically held that where a party had
an opportunity to raise a ground in earlier proceedings but failed to do so, the principle of
constructive res judicata would apply, and a subsequent petition on the same cause or consequential
relief would not be maintainable. Reference may be made to the judgements in the cases of State of
Uttar Pradesh v. Nawab Hussain, (1977) 2 SCC 806 and Direct Recruit Class II Engineering
Officers' Association v. State of Maharashtra and others, (1990) 2 SCC 715. In the case of
K.K. Modi v. K.N. Modi and others, (1998) 3 SCC 573, also, the Apex Court has deprecated
repeated litigation on the same subject matter and held that such practice amounts to abuse of the
process of the Court. Even otherwise, the original order passed by the authority has already been
challenged by the petitioner by filing a Special Appeal, which is admittedly pending consideration.
During the pendency of the Special Appeal, parallel proceedings seeking substantially the same
relief are barred. In the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. M/s. Chhabil Dass Agarwal,
(2014) 1 SCC 603, the Supreme Court has held that where a statutory or appellate remedy is being
pursued, a writ petition is ordinarily not maintainable.

6. In view of the settled legal position and the pendency of the Special Appeal, once the
principal relief is declined, no independent relief can be claimed on the basis of a consequential or
ancillary order in the present writ petition. Thus, the writ petition preferred against the order
impugned is not maintainable. It is dismissed accordingly. Interim order granted earlier stands
discharged.

7. No order as to costs.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 970
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 12.01.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

Writ A No. 14910 of 2025

Ache Lal ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
(1) Relevancy of family welfare, while considering the claim of compassionate appointment.
(2) Basis of suitability of granting compassionate appointment.
(3) Role of registered will in favour of a family member while considering the case of granting compassionate
appointment.
Headnotes
1 All. Ache Lal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
971
(A) Service law - Compassionate appointment - Rivalry claim between brother and widow of
deceased employee - Petitioner, being brother, claimed on the basis of registered Will, while
respondent no. 4 claimed as wife of deceased - The authority denied granting compassionate
appointment to either of the parties on the ground that it is difficult to ascertain eligibility of
either in view of conflicting documents - Validity challenged - Role of the registered will in
favour of a family member and relevancy of family welfare while granting compassionate
appointment felt into consideration. (E-1)
Held : The aspect of registered Will in favour of any member of family does not have any role to play with
regard to grant of compassionate employment. The only aspect requires to be seen for such benefit is the
suitability of the person for providing such employment. Such suitability necessarily has to be seen based on
the fact whether the applicant was dependent upon the deceased employee or not - Decision shall be taken
keeping in view overall interest of welfare of entire family, particularly the widow and minor members thereof
- Impugned order dated 18.11.2025 has been passed without taking into account relevant Rules of 1974 and
is therefore quashed by issuance of a Writ in the nature of Certiorari. [Para 12, 13 and 17]

List of Acts
UP Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness. Rules, 1974 - Rule 2(c), 5, 6 and 7.

List of Keywords
Compassionate appointment, Registered will-deed, Family, Spouse, Welfare of entire family, Widow and minor
members, Divorce.

Case Arising From
Impugned order dated 18.11.2025 passed by the authority.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant : Aadya Antya; Vedant Srivastava and Virendra Prasad Srivastava.
Advs. for the Respondents : C.S.C.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manish Mathur, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite

2. In view of order being passed, notice to opposite party No.4 stands dispensed with.

3. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 18.11.2025 whereby petitioner's application
for compassionate appointment in terms of U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government
Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 [here-in-after referred to as 'Rules of 1974'] has been
rejected on the ground that it is impossible to ascertain heirship in view of a registered Will in
favour of petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that he is the brother of deceased-Ranjeet Kumar
who passed away in harness on 27.09.2025. It is submitted that although opposite party No.4, Smt.
Aruna Devi is the wife of deceased, but had a strained relationship with the deceased due to which
she was separated and it is in fact petitioner who was taking care of the deceased alongwith aged
parents. It is submitted that since petitioner is unemployed he would have a preferential right for
compassionate appointment over opposite party No.4 but this is an aspect unconsidered in the
impugned order despite the fact that there is a registered Will in favour of petitioner.
972 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

5. Learned State Counsel has been provided written instructions dated 08.01.2026, a copy of
which is taken on record and on that basis, submits that petitioner as well as opposite party No.4
have claimed compassionate appointment in view of demise of late Ranjeet Kumar. It is submitted
that although a registered Will in favour of the petitioner was produced but opposite party No.4
being the undivorced wife of deceased has also submitted an application and particularly in view of
registered Will, it is difficult to ascertain the rights of either parties.

6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and perusal
of material on record, particularly impugned order, it is evident that upon demise of late Ranjeet
Kumar, his wife Smt. Aruna Devi as well as petitioner being brother of deceased have putforth
their claims for compassionate appointment. While petitioner is seeking claim on the basis of
registered Will dated 19.06.2025, opposite party No.4 is claiming as wife of deceased.

7. The impugned order indicates that the concerned authority has not granted compassionate
appointment to either of the parties on the ground that it is difficult to ascertain eligibility of either
in view of conflicting documents.

8. For the purpose of providing compassionate appointment in terms of Rules of 1974, it is
relevant that the person applying for same should come within the definition of 'family' as
prescribed in Rule 2 (c) of the aforesaid Rules while a 'spouse' is indicated in Rule 2(c)(i) and
'unmarried brother' is indicated in Sub-Rule (iv) of the same Rules.

9. It is also relevant that Rule 4 indicates overriding effect of Rules of 1974 over any other
Rules or orders and the process of recruitment is indicated in Rule - 5 thereof.

10. It is also relevant that in Rule - 7 of the Rules of 1974 procedure when more than one
family member of deceased seeks employment has been indicated.

11. A perusal of Rule - 5 reveals that second proviso thereto clearly indicates that for purpose
of entertaining application for compassionate appointment of a member of family of deceased,
aspect of the said applicant being dependent of the deceased government servant is required. Rule -
6 indicates contents of application for employment and particularly adverts to the fact that details
pertaining to all members of family of deceased, particularly about their marriage, employment and
income as well as details of financial condition of family are required to be indicated.

12. In pursuance thereof Rule - 7 of the Rules provides that where more than one member of
the family of the deceased seeks employment, the Head of Office shall decide about the suitability
of a person seeking employment. It is provided that decision shall be taken keeping in view overall
interest of welfare of entire family, particularly the widow and minor members thereof.

13. It is thus evident that the aspect of registered Will in favour of any member of family does
not have any role to play with regard to grant of compassionate employment. The only aspect
requires to be seen for such benefit is the suitability of the person for providing such employment.
Such suitability necessarily has to be seen based on the fact whether the applicant was dependent
upon the deceased employee or not. The overall interest and welfare of the entire family
1 All. Dr. Chandra Bhushan Singh Mahur Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
973
particularly widow and minor members thereof is also a sine qua non as indicated in Rule - 7 of the
Rules of 1974.

14. In such circumstances, the Head of Office is required to adjudicate not only with regard to
dependency of a family member of a deceased employee but also the suitability of person applying
for such compassionate appointment who will also be required to take care of the widow and minor
members of the deceased family.

15. In the present case, it is evident that although petitioner has applied for compassionate
appointment on the basis of a registered Will, but in the considered opinion of this Court, the said
factor would be irrelevant for purposes of consideration of his application for compassionate
appointment. It is incumbent upon the Head of Office to consider applications of petitioner as well
as opposite party No.4 only in accordance with Rules of 1974, particularly Rules 2, 6 and 7 thereof.

16. It is also admitted between the parties that there is no Divorce Decree granted between the
deceased and the opposite party No.4, who therefore continues with a status of wife of the deceased
and is an aspect required to be considered by the Head of Office. Mere fact of her being estranged
from the deceased does not have any relevant role particularly since as per impugned order itself,
the deceased had a daughter, namely, Km. Alka whose rights in case she is an adult would also
require consideration.

17. In view of discussion made here-in-above, it is evident that impugned order dated 18.11.2025 has
been passed without taking into account relevant Rules of 1974 and is therefore quashed by issuance of a
Writ in the nature of Certiorari. A further Writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued commanding opposite
party No.3, i.e., Executive Engineer, Public Works Department, Provincial Section, Lakhimpur Kheri to
decide the applications for compassionate appointment submitted by the petitioner as well as opposite
party No.4, Smt. Aruna Devi afresh in light of Rules of 1974 and in light of observations made here-inabove, expeditiously, within a period of eight weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is served
upon the authority concerned. For the said purpose, opportunity of hearing is required to be granted to
petitioner as well as all relevant members of family of deceased including the daughter.

18. Consequently, petition succeeds and is allowed at the admission stage itself. Parties to
bear their own costs.
----------
(2026) 1 ILRA 973
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.01.2026

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Writ A No. 15424 of 2025

Dr. Chandra Bhushan Singh Mahur ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents