# Amit Kumar v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 11 ILRA 75
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-08-29
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 12229 of 2022
- **Bench:** Karunesh Singh Pawar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/amit-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-anr-47860
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Civil Law - The U.P. Recruitment of
Dependants
of
Government
Servants
Dying in Harness -Rule 5: The death of the
late mother of the petitioner- his father was
already
employed
the
St.
Government
-
presently receiving pension from the St.
Government -compassionate appointment to be
given where the other spouse of the deceased is
not
already
employed
in
the
Central
Government
or
the
St.
Government
or
otherwise.

Petition dismissed. (E-9)

## Text

11 All. Amit Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
75

(xxi) perform and discharge his
duties
with
the
highest
degree
of
professionalism and dedication to the best
of his abilities.

13. The substance of the charge is the
acceptance of the additional evidence and
judgments given by him while holding the
charge in quasi-judicial nature and that too
in the year 2016-17. The learned Senior
Counsel is unable to point out the illegality
in
the
finding
recorded
by
the
Administrative
Tribunal
under
the
impugned order and also do not dispute the
fact that first charge-sheet was issued on
09.09.2020 and the same was quashed by
the Tribunal
in
Original Application
No.466 of 2020 and also does not dispute
the fact that the decision arrived at by the
Respondent No.1 while discharging his
function as Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeal) - 4, Mumbai, were upheld by
higher forum and also does not dispute the
fact that the second charge-sheet was issued
on the same inspection report on the basis
of which first charge-sheet was issued.

14. We are of the opinion that issuing
the second charge-sheet on the same set of
facts, in itself is malicious and that too at
the verge of retirement for an event which
was four year old. Thus, we are not inclined
to interfere in the judgment and order
passed by the Tribunal allowing the
original
application,
quashing
the
impugned charge-sheet and granting the
Respondent No.1 all the consequential
benefits. Accordingly, the writ petition fails
and is, accordingly, dismissed.

15. No order as to costs.
----------
(2022) 11 ILRA 75
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.08.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KARUNESH SINGH PAWAR, J.

Writ A No. 12229 of 2022

Amit Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Gyan Prakash

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Civil Law - The U.P. Recruitment of
Dependants
of
Government
Servants
Dying in Harness -Rule 5: The death of the
late mother of the petitioner- his father was
already
employed
the
St.
Government
-
presently receiving pension from the St.
Government -compassionate appointment to be
given where the other spouse of the deceased is
not
already
employed
in
the
Central
Government
or
the
St.
Government
or
otherwise.

Petition dismissed. (E-9)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Karunesh Singh
Pawar, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for
the respondents.

2. By this petition, the petitioner has
prayed for the following relief:-

"(I) A Writ, order or direction in
the nature of certiorari quashing the order
dated 21.5.2022 passed by the respondent
No.2 (Chief Medical Officer, Firozabad).

(II) A Writ, order or direction in
the nature /of of mandamus directing the
76 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
respondent No.2 to consider the claim of
the petitioner under the dying-in-harness
rules for the suitable post."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the impugned order dated
21.05.2022 passed by the Chief Medical
Officer, Firozabad is arbitrary. He also
submits that claim of the petitioner has
wrongly been denied.

4. It is further submitted that all other
legal heirs of the late Sunita Devi have
given their no objection certificate in
favour of the petitioner.

5. Learned Standing Counsel has
opposed the petition submitting that The
U.P.
Recruitment
of
Dependants
of
Government Servants Dying in Harness
Rules, 1974 have been framed to provide
immediate relief by providing employment
to one member of the aggrieved family. In
this case at the time of death of the mother
of the petitioner, his father was already
employed in the Government service and
presently after retirement he is receiving
the pension and therefore on this ground
the representation of the petitioner has
rightly been rejected.

6. Perusal of Rule 5 of The U.P.
Recruitment
of
Dependants
of
Government Servants Dying in Harness
Rules, 1974 shows that compassionate
appointment is given one of the family
member of the deceased government
employee in case a government servant
dies and the spouse of the deceased
Government
servant
is
not
already
employed under the Central Government
or a State Government etc. Rule 5 of The
U.P.
Recruitment
of
Dependants
of
Government Servants Dying in Harness
Rules, 1974 is extracted below:-

"[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)
fulfils
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.

(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.]"

7. It is admitted case of the petitioner
that at the time of the death of the late
mother of the petitioner, his father was
11 All. Chandra Prakash Vs. The State of U.P. & Ors.
77
already
employed
with
the
State
Government.
Rule
5
of
The
U.P.
Recruitment of Dependants of Government
Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974
shows that compassionate appointment has
to be given in that circumstances where the
other spouse of the deceased is not already
employed in the Central Government or the
State Government or otherwise. Since the
father of the petitioner was already
employed at the time of death of the mother
of the petitioner and is presently receiving
pension from the State Government,
therefore, in view of the clear bar under
Rule-5 of The U.P. Recruitment of
Dependants of Government Servants Dying
in Harness Rules, 1974, I do not find any
illegality in the impugned order dated
21.05.2022.

8. Law in this regard is clear that in
case a government servant dies and his
dependent
applies
for
compassionate
appointment
he
can
only
be
given
compassionate appointment if the other
spouse
of
the
deceased
government
employee is not already employed with the
State Government and Central Government
or any other local body etc. Since in this
case it is admitted between the parties that
at the time of death of the mother of the
petitioner, father of the petitioner was
already
in
government
service
and
presently he is receiving pension.

9. The objective of compassionate
appointment is to provide assistance to the
bereaved family of the deceased employee
who has suffered shock and financial
scarcity due to sudden demise of the sole
bread winner of the family.

10. The compassionate appointment
is an exception to the general rule of the
appointment and it is based on to provide
immediate sustenance and support to the
family of the deceased employee for loss
of the sole bread winner of the family and
to overcome the sudden crises arising out
of the sudden demise of the deceased
employee, however, since in this case, the
deceased
government
employee
was
succeeded by his/her spouse and children
including
the
petitioner
and
the
spouse/husband of the deceased namely
Ram Singh was a government employee
and presently he is receiving pension and
therefore, it cannot be said that the family
of the deceased is facing scarcity due to
the sudden demise of the loss of bread
winner of the family. The mother of the
petitioner was not sole bread winner of
the family, hence, I do not find any
illegality in the impugned order dated
21.05.2022. The order dated 21.05.2022
has been passed in consonance of law and
particularly
Rule
5
of
The
U.P.
Recruitment
of
Dependants
of
Government Servants Dying in Harness
Rules, 1974.

11. The writ petition is devoid of
merits and is accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2022) 11 ILRA 77
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.10.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE CHANDRA KUMAR RAI, J.

Writ B No. 26568 of 2016

Chandra Prakash ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ms. Pratima Singh, Sri Arun Kumar Tiwari,
Sri Agni Pal Singh