# Aditya Sudhakar v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 2 ILRA 908
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-11-23
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 10884 of 2021
- **Bench:** Saral Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/aditya-sudhakar-v-state-of-u-p-anr-47558
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Law
-
Compassionate
Appointment - U.P. Dying in Harness
Rules, 1974-Rule 5-Father of petitioner
died due to Covid-19- mother of the
petitioner submitted an application as
per State Govt. Order dated 20.05.2021
for compassionate appointment-if the
case of the petitioner falls within Rule 5
of notification no. 6/XII/73/Ka-2-T.C.-
IV dated 22.01.2014 only then he may
be
provided
compassionate
appointment-the
mother
of
the
petitioner was employed in Kendriya
Vidyalaya
which
is
governed
and
administered by Central Government
and Rule 5 of U.P. Dying in Harness
Rules, 1974 excludes the dependent of
an
employee
for
compassionate
appointment whose husband and wife,
as the case may be, is employed under
the
Central
Government
or
State
Government-Thus, Rule 5 of U.P. Dying
in Harness Rules, 1974 clearly bars the
appointment
of
the
petitioner
on
compassionate ground.(Para 1 to 13)

The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

908 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
----------
(2022)02ILR A908
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 23.11.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ-A No. 10884 of 2021

Aditya Sudhakar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Bipin Lal Sri Vinayak Varma, Sri S.K. Varma
(Senior Adv.)

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A.
Service
Law
-
Compassionate
Appointment - U.P. Dying in Harness
Rules, 1974-Rule 5-Father of petitioner
died due to Covid-19- mother of the
petitioner submitted an application as
per State Govt. Order dated 20.05.2021
for compassionate appointment-if the
case of the petitioner falls within Rule 5
of notification no. 6/XII/73/Ka-2-T.C.-
IV dated 22.01.2014 only then he may
be
provided
compassionate
appointment-the
mother
of
the
petitioner was employed in Kendriya
Vidyalaya
which
is
governed
and
administered by Central Government
and Rule 5 of U.P. Dying in Harness
Rules, 1974 excludes the dependent of
an
employee
for
compassionate
appointment whose husband and wife,
as the case may be, is employed under
the
Central
Government
or
State
Government-Thus, Rule 5 of U.P. Dying
in Harness Rules, 1974 clearly bars the
appointment
of
the
petitioner
on
compassionate ground.(Para 1 to 13)

The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:
1. Smt. Deepa Vashishtha Vs St. of U.P. &
anr.(1996) 1 UPLBEC 54

2. Home Secy., U.T. of Chandigarh & anr. Vs
Darshjit Singh Grewal & ors.. JT (1993) 4 SC
387
(Delivered by Hon'ble Saral Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Sri S.K. Varma, learned
Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Vinayak
Varma, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Sri R.S. Umrao, learned Standing
Counsel for the respondents.

2. The petitioner by means of present
writ petition has assailed the order dated
22.07.2021 passed by the Director of the
Social Welfare Department, U.P. rejecting
the
claim
of
the
petitioner
for
compassionate appointment.

3. The case of the petitioner is that his
father Harish Chandra Arya was Deputy
Director in Social Welfare Department and
was posted at Bareilly Division, Bareilly.
His father was declared a corona positive
patient on 08.05.2021. He was admitted in
Khushlok Hospital, Bareilly and died on
22.05.2021 due to Covid-19.

4. The Chief Secretary of State of
U.P. issued an order/letter on 20.05.2021
addressed to the District Magistrates
directing them to ensure that family
members of the employees of health
services,
Police,
Urban
and
Rural
Administration and other Government
Officers who are discharging their duties
with dedication to fight with Covid-19
pandemic and had died while discharging
their duties be immediately granted exgratia amount and one dependent of such
employees be provided compassionate
appointment as per rules. Accordingly,
mother of the petitioner submitted an
2 All. Aditya Sudhakar Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
909
application on 03.06.2021 requesting that
the petitioner be granted compassionate
appointment. The respondent no.2 by order
dated 22.07.2021 rejected the claim of
petitioner under Dying in Harness Rules on
the ground that his mother is employed in
Kendriya Vidyalaya which is governed and
administered by Central Government.

5. Challenging the aforesaid order,
learned Senior Counsel has submitted that
the order dated 20.05.2021 issued by Chief
Secretary, State of U.P. is explicit and
provides that the dependent of deceased
employee who had died due to Covid-19 is
to be given compassionate appointment in
place of deceased employee.

6. Elaborating the said argument
learned counsel submits that the language
used
in
Government
Order
dated
20.05.2021 is explicit and discloses the
intention of the Government to give
employment to the dependent of the
deceased who died due to Covid-19. He
further submits that if that was not the
intention of the Government, there was no
necessity of issuing Government Order
dated 20.05.2021 as there was already U.P.
Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 providing for
compassionate appointment. He further
submits that once the Government has
framed a policy to provide employment to
the dependent of the deceased employee
who died of Covid-19, it is bound by the
said policy and it is incumbent upon the
Government to scrupulously adhere to the
Government Order dated 20.05.2021. It is
further contended that the notification no.
6/XII/73/Ka-2-T.C-IV dated 22.01.2014
shall be deemed to have been superseded
by the order dated 20.05.2021 issued by
Chief Secretary, State of U.P. in respect to
the employees who died of Covid-19.

7. Per- contra, learned Standing
Counsel contends that the object of issuing
the Government Order dated 20.05.2021 is
to provide immediately ex-gratia payment
and compassionate appointment to the
dependents of deceased employee who died
of Covid-19 as per rules without any delay.
He submits that the order dated 20.05.2021
provides that the dependent of the deceased
employee should be given compassionate
appointment as per rules immediately. He
submits that the intention behind issuance
of order dated 20.05.2021 to provide
immediate succour to the family of the
deceased employee died of Covid-19
without any delay since such an employee
had dedicated his life to fight with the
menace of Covid-19 pandemic. He submits
that if the rules permits only then the
dependent of the employee is to be
provided employment on compassionate
ground. He submits that Deputy Secretary
of State of U.P. wrote a letter addressed to
the Director Social Welfare clarifying that
if the case of the petitioner falls within
Rule 5 of notification no. 6/XII/73/Ka-2T.C-IV dated 22.01.2014 only then he may
be provided compassionate appointment.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for
the State-respondents and perused the
record.

9. In order to appreciate the
submissions advanced by learned counsel
for the petitioner relevant extract of order
dated
20.05.2021
issued
by
Chief
Secretary, State of U.P. is reproduced
herein as under:

"समस्त लजलालिकािी

प्रदेश में कोलवड सींिमण के लनयींत्रण एवीं
बचाव हेतु स्वास्थ्य सेवाओीं, पुललस, प्रशासन,
910 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
नगिीय एवीं ग्रामीण थिानीय प्रशासन सलहत सभी
शासकीय अलिकािी व कमटचािी अपने दालयत्योीं
का लनवटहन कि िहे हैं। इस दौिान अपनी ड्यूटी
के समय सींिलमत होने से कुछ कलमटयोीं की
दुैःखद मृत्यु भी हुई है। यह सुलनलश्चत लकया जाए
लक ऐसे कलमटयोीं को तत्काल अनुमन्य अनुग्रह
िालश तिा उसके एक आलश्रत को लनयमानुसाि
सेवा में िखे जाने की कायटवाही भी यिाशीघ्र की
जानी चालहए। यलद इस सम्बन्ध में कायटवाही
लवभाग/शासन स्ति पि की जानी है तो इस
सम्बन्ध में लजलालिकािी अपनी आख्या भी
तत्काल सम्बस्न्धत लवभाग को प्रेलषत किना
सुलनलश्चत किें।

2- समस्त लवभागोीं द्वािा भी ऐसे मामलोीं में
तत्काल अपेलक्षत कायटवाही सुलनलश्चत की जाए
तिा इसकी सूचना कालमटक लवभाग को भी
उपलब्ध किायी जाए।"

10. The order dated 20.05.2021 is
distinct and provides in unequivocal terms
that the dependent of an employee died of
Covid-19 shall be given compassionate
appointment expeditiously without any
delay as per rules. It further provides that as
the decision is to be taken at the level of
State Government, therefore, the concerned
District Magistrate shall forthwith submit
report
to
the
concerned
department/administration
of
State
Government and all departments shall
forthwith ensure the action on said
recommendation to provide compassionate
appointment. Thus, it is clear that the
Government Order dated 20.05.2021 has
been issued only to provide immediate
relief to those employees who died of
Covid-19 and had dedicated their lives to a
social cause in fighting against Covid-19
pandemic. Thus, it can safely culled out
from the reading of Government Order
dated 20.05.2021 that it only provides
preferential treatment to the dependents of
deceased employee who died of Covid-19
from other deceased employees who had
died in normal circumstances. Thus, the
submission of learned counsel for the
petitioner that once an employee died due
to Covid-19, his dependent has to be given
employment on compassionate ground is
misplaced as the order dated 20.05.2021 is
specific and unambiguous which clearly
stipulates that the dependents of such an
employee shall be given preference over
the dependant of other deceased employees
as per rules.

11. So far as the two judgments relied
upon by the learned counsel for the
petitioner in Smt. Deepa Vashishtha Vs.
State of U.P. and another, (1996) 1
UPLBEC 54 and Home Secretary, U.T. of
Chandigarh and Anr. Vs. Darshjit Singh
Grewal & Ors., JT 1993 (4) S.C. 387 are
concerned, it is true that these judgments
have elucidated that once the Government
has issued a policy, it must adhere to the
said policy, and if the Government deviates
from the policy framed by it, then it must
record reasons for doing so. But in the
instant case, the order dated 20.05.2021 is
specific and clearly provides that the
dependents of deceased employee died of
Covid-19 shall be given appointment as per
rules.

12. In the instant case, it is admitted
that the mother of the petitioner is
employed in Kendriya Vidyalaya which is
governed and administered by Central
Government and Rule 5 of U.P. Dying in
Harness
Rules,
1974
excludes
the
dependent
of
an
employee
for
compassionate appointment whose husband
and wife, as the case may be, is employed
under the Central Government or a State
Government or a Corporation owned or
controlled by the Central Government or a
2 All. Sumit Kumar Sharma Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
911
State Government. Thus, Rule 5 of U.P.
Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 clearly bars
the appointment of the petitioner on
compassionate ground.

13. Thus, for the reasons given above,
the writ petition lacks merit and is,
accordingly, dismissed. However, there
shall be no order as to costs.
----------
(2022)02ILR A911
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 02.12.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ-A No. 17061 of 2021

Sumit Kumar Sharma ...Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Pradeep Kumar, Sri Krishna Nand

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Vivek Tripathi

A.
Service
Law
-
Compassionate
appointment-dying
in
harnesscandidate appointment rejected-father
of the petitioner died in harness leaving
behind his widow and son/petitionerpetitioner
found
unfit
for
post
of
constable on the ground that he was
over age and also because of his marital
status-petitioner was also considered
for driver post but he failed to submit
his driving license-thus the age as on
the date on which the application is
considered would be the relevant date,
and not when the application is madecompassionate
appointment
is
an
exception
to
the
general
rule-the
compassionate ground is a concession
and not a right-Hence, no illegality in
the impugned order.(Para 1 to 13)

B. The appointment on compassionate
grounds is not a source of recruitment,
but a means to enable the family of the
deceased to get over a sudden financial
crisis. The provision of employment in
such lowest posts by making an exception
to the rule is justifiable and valid since it
is not discriminatory. (Para 10)

The writ petition is dismissed. (E-6)
List of Cases cited:

1. St. of U.P. & ors. Vs Premlata, Civil Appeal
No. 6003 of 2021

2. H.P. & anr. Vs Shashi Kumar (2019) 3 SCC
653

3. Govind Prakash Verma Vs LIC (2005) 10 SCC
289: 2005 SCC (L&S) 590

4. Mumtaz Yunus Mulani Vs St. of Mah. (2008) 2
SCC (L&S) 1077

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

1. Heard Sri Pradeep Kumar Kashyap,
learned counsel for the petitioner as well as
Sri
Shashi
Prakash
Singh,
learned
Additional Solicitor General of India
assisted by Sri Vivek Triapthi, learned
counsel for the respondents.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that by means of present writ
petition, petitioner has assailed the order
dated 12.05.2021, passed by the Inspector
General of Police, Central Reserve Police
Force, Central Command, Vibhuti Khand,
Gomati
Nagar,
Lucknow,
whereby
candidature
of
the
petitioner
for
compassionate appointment on one of the
various posts in the CRPF have been
rejected.

3. It is next submitted by learned
counsel for the petitioner that his father was