# Archana Gautam v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2025) 11 ILRA 743
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-11-15
- **Case number:** Writ - A No. 2878 of 2004
- **Bench:** Amitabh Kumar Rai
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/archana-gautam-v-state-of-u-p-54783
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

C.S.C., Pradeep Tiwari, Ran Vijay Singh, V.K.
Bajpai

Issue for Consideration
Permissibility
of
accepting
the
claim
for
compassionate appointment after 35 years from
the death of employee.

Headnotes
(A)
Service
law
-
Compassionate
appointment - Delay - Petitioner's father
died in 1990 - Claim for compassionate
appointment was made through several
representation - Ultimately writ petition
was filed in 2004 - No order was passed
by department on the claim - Effect -
Permissibility to accept claim after 35
years from the death of employee - Object
of granting compassionate appointment
explained.
Held : The object of grant of compassionate
appointment to a dependent of a deceased
employee is to tide over the immediate crisis so
as to enable the family of the deceased
employee to get over the financial crises caused
by the death of the sole bread earner - Such a
provision makes a departure from the general
provisions providing for appointment to posts by
following a prescribed procedure. Since such a
provision enables appointment without following
the regular procedure, it is in the nature of an
exception to the general rule. [Paras 10]
Held further : The sense of immediacy in the
matter of compassionate appointment has been
lost, which is attributable to the departmental
authorities to a great extent, but to some extent
to the petitioner also, as after the death of the
deceased employee in the year 1990 and
submission
of
the
application
seeking
compassionate appointment way back in the
year 1993, the respondent filed writ petition
only in the year 2004, i.e., after 11 years of the
744 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
submission of application. Now at this juncture,
to
entertain
a
claim
for
compassionate
appointment after 35 years of the death of the
deceased employee would be of no avail,
because admittedly, the dependents of the
deceased employee have been able to eke out a
living even though petitioner could not secure
appointment on compassionate grounds. The
compassionate appointment is not source of
recruitment but is an exception to the general
rule of recruitment to tide over the immediate
crisis so as to enable the family of the deceased
employee to get over the financial crises caused
by the death of the sole bread earner. [Para 14]
(E- 1)

Case Law Cited
Shiv Kumar Dubey vs. State of U.P. and Ors.,
2014 SCC Online All 16214 : (2015) 3 ALL LJ
420; State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari
and others, (2025) 5 SCC 712 : 2023 SCC
Online SC 219 - referred to.

List of Acts
UP Recruitment of Dependents of Government
Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.

List of Keywords
Dying
in
harness;
Age
of
majority;
Compassionate appointment; Superannuation;
Dependent; Non-consideration of claim; Failure
of the department; Financial crisis; Pure
humanitarian condition; Deceased employee;
Regular procedure; Sense of immediacy; Source
of recruitment; Delay.

Case Arising From
Failure of department in not passing order on
the
petitioner's
claim
for
compassionate
appointment.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner : B. N.Pandey, Arun
Kumar Shukla
Advs. For the Respondent : Badrish Tripathi
S.C.,
Pradeep
Tiwari,
Ran
Vijay
Singh,
V.K.Bajpai

## Text

11 All. Archana Gautam Vs. State of U.P.
743
power under the proviso to sub-rule (2) of
Rule 8. Thus, in case of conviction for
offence
involving
moral
turpitude,
ordinarily dismissal has to follow unless
there exists any special reason and which is
to be recorded in writing. The findings
returned by the disciplinary authority,
though, does not specifically uses the
phrase 'moral turpitude' but also does not
leave any manner of doubt that the same
amounted to moral turpitude of the highest
degree. We find absolutely no illegality or
perversity in the order of the disciplinary
authority awarding the punishment of
dismissal. The learned Single Judge has not
referred to the facts of the case nor has
examined the findings of the trial court
relating to the conduct of the contesting
respondent, which has led to his conviction
and merely by placing reliance on two
previous judgements which, as noted
above, were based on facts of those
particular
cases,
has
quashed
the
punishment order.

21. In our considered opinion, the
order of learned Single Judge 27.02.2025
corrected vide order dated 15.04.2025 is,
therefore, unsustainable in law and is,
accordingly, set aside.

22. The appeal is allowed.

23. Consequently, the writ petition
stands dismissed.

24. No order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 743
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 15.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AMITABH KUMAR RAI, J.
Writ - A No. 2878 of 2004

Archana Gautam ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
B.N. Pandey, Arun K Shukla

Counsel for the Respondent:
C.S.C., Pradeep Tiwari, Ran Vijay Singh, V.K.
Bajpai

Issue for Consideration
Permissibility
of
accepting
the
claim
for
compassionate appointment after 35 years from
the death of employee.

Headnotes
(A)
Service
law
-
Compassionate
appointment - Delay - Petitioner's father
died in 1990 - Claim for compassionate
appointment was made through several
representation - Ultimately writ petition
was filed in 2004 - No order was passed
by department on the claim - Effect -
Permissibility to accept claim after 35
years from the death of employee - Object
of granting compassionate appointment
explained.
Held : The object of grant of compassionate
appointment to a dependent of a deceased
employee is to tide over the immediate crisis so
as to enable the family of the deceased
employee to get over the financial crises caused
by the death of the sole bread earner - Such a
provision makes a departure from the general
provisions providing for appointment to posts by
following a prescribed procedure. Since such a
provision enables appointment without following
the regular procedure, it is in the nature of an
exception to the general rule. [Paras 10]
Held further : The sense of immediacy in the
matter of compassionate appointment has been
lost, which is attributable to the departmental
authorities to a great extent, but to some extent
to the petitioner also, as after the death of the
deceased employee in the year 1990 and
submission
of
the
application
seeking
compassionate appointment way back in the
year 1993, the respondent filed writ petition
only in the year 2004, i.e., after 11 years of the
744 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
submission of application. Now at this juncture,
to
entertain
a
claim
for
compassionate
appointment after 35 years of the death of the
deceased employee would be of no avail,
because admittedly, the dependents of the
deceased employee have been able to eke out a
living even though petitioner could not secure
appointment on compassionate grounds. The
compassionate appointment is not source of
recruitment but is an exception to the general
rule of recruitment to tide over the immediate
crisis so as to enable the family of the deceased
employee to get over the financial crises caused
by the death of the sole bread earner. [Para 14]
(E- 1)

Case Law Cited
Shiv Kumar Dubey vs. State of U.P. and Ors.,
2014 SCC Online All 16214 : (2015) 3 ALL LJ
420; State of West Bengal vs. Debabrata Tiwari
and others, (2025) 5 SCC 712 : 2023 SCC
Online SC 219 - referred to.

List of Acts
UP Recruitment of Dependents of Government
Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.

List of Keywords
Dying
in
harness;
Age
of
majority;
Compassionate appointment; Superannuation;
Dependent; Non-consideration of claim; Failure
of the department; Financial crisis; Pure
humanitarian condition; Deceased employee;
Regular procedure; Sense of immediacy; Source
of recruitment; Delay.

Case Arising From
Failure of department in not passing order on
the
petitioner's
claim
for
compassionate
appointment.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner : B. N.Pandey, Arun
Kumar Shukla
Advs. For the Respondent : Badrish Tripathi
S.C.,
Pradeep
Tiwari,
Ran
Vijay
Singh,
V.K.Bajpai

(Delivered by Hon'ble Amitabh Kumar
Rai, J.)

1. Heard Shri Arun Kumar Shukla,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri
Badrish Tripathi, learned Standing Counsel
for the State-respondent Nos.1, 3, Shri
Pradeep
Tiwari,
learned
counsel
for
respondent No.2 and Shri Ran Vijay Singh,
learned counsel for the respondent No.4.

2. The present writ petition has been
filed seeking relief for issuance of writ of
mandamus directing respondents to appoint
petitioner on a suitable post according to
her qualification under the Uttar Pradesh
Recruitment of Dependents of Government
Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974
(hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1974")
on compassionate grounds.

3. The facts which emerge from the
record are that the father of the petitioner,
namely, late Mahadeo Prasad died on
26.05.1990 while working on the post of
Headmaster, Prathmik Vidyalaya, New
Hyderabad, Ward Hasanganj, Lucknow.
The petitioner, after attaining the age of
majority, applied for appointment under
Rules, 1974 on compassionate grounds
through an application dated 10.10.1993
before the Secretary, Basic Shiksha,
Anubhag-5, U.P. Government, Lucknow.
Subsequent applications were also moved
by the petitioner on 19.10.1993 and
22.11.1993 before Anubhag Adhikari,
Shiksha Anubhag-5, U.P. Sachivalaya,
Lucknow and District Basic Education
Officer,
Nagar
Mahapalika,
Lucknow
respectively. The mother of the petitioner
also
submitted
an
affidavit
dated
21.10.1994 recommending compassionate
appointment in favour of the petitioner and
the brother of the petitioner also gave a noobjection for providing compassionate
appointment to the petitioner.
11 All. Archana Gautam Vs. State of U.P.
745

4. It is the case of the petitioner that
despite completion of all formalities, the
respondents did not pass any order for
providing compassionate appointment to
the petitioner. Consequently, petitioner
represented the matter before the then
Chief Minister of the State of U.P., on
which a recommendation was made on
07.11.2002 by the Secretary to the Chief
Minister directing the Secretary, Basic
Education, Government of U.P. to take
necessary action. Subsequently, the Nagar
Shiksha Adhikari, Lucknow wrote letter to
the Secretary, Basic Education Board, U.P.,
Allahabad
dated
28.03.2003
seeking
guidelines for the grant of compassionate
appointment to the petitioner. Another
letter dated 19.02.2004 was issued by the
Joint Secretary, Government of U.P.,
Shiksha, Anubhag-5 to the Secretary, Basic
Shiksha Parishad, U.P., Allahabad for
considering the case of petitioner for grant
of compassionate appointment.

5. The sum and substance of the
aforesaid correspondences is that several
representations
were
moved
by
the
petitioner for grant of compassionate
appointment and the authorities kept the
matter pending while making several interdepartmental correspondences but did not
take any decision regarding consideration
of
the
case
of
the
petitioner
for
compassionate appointment. Ultimately,
the petitioner filed the instant writ petition,
in which this Court, vide order dated
27.05.2004, granted four weeks time to
the counsel for the Basic Shiksha Adhikari
to file a counter affidavit. In pursuance of
the directions of this Court, the counter
affidavit was filed, to which the petitioner
also filed a rejoinder affidavit. During the
course of the hearing of the present case, it
transpires from order sheet that vide order
dated 28.08.2006, it was recorded that the
counter affidavit is not available on record
and the learned counsel for the petitioner
was permitted to file a copy of the counter
affidavit after certifying it to be a true copy.
However, from the record, it transpires that
no such copy has been filed till date,
though the rejoinder affidavit is available
on record. On 01.08.2023, the instant writ
petition was dismissed for want of
prosecution, as no one appeared to press
the matter on behalf of the petitioner. An
application for recall was moved on
05.12.2023 and the writ petition was
restored vide order dated 19.02.2024.

6. The matter pertains to the year 2004
regarding
claim
for
compassionate
appointment with respect to a deceased
employee who died way back in the year
1990. As such, this Court did not consider
it proper to further adjourn the present case.
Accordingly, the present writ petition is
being decided on the basis of the pleading
in the memo of the writ petition.

7. During the course of hearing, the
counsel for the petitioner contended that
the case of the petitioner was kept pending
and the authorities did not consider her
claim for compassionate appointment,
which amounts to inaction on the part of
the respondents. Accordingly, appropriate
directions be issued for consideration of the
case of the petitioner for compassionate
appointment on a suitable post which may
be provided by the respondents.

8. From the various correspondences
between the departmental authorities, it
transpires that the case of the petitioner
could not be considered for compassionate
appointment as there was some doubt
regarding the eligibility, since the father of
the petitioner, before his death, had attained
the
age
of
superannuation but
was
746 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
continuing
in
service
owing
to
the
extension of retirement on the account of
session benefit and for the said reason, the
petitioners
case
for
compassionate
appointment could not be considered. In
this regard, the counsel for petitioner has
pointed out the letter dated 14.10.1998 of
the Secretary, U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad,
Allahabad, annexed to the writ petition as
Annexure-11, wherein it has been clarified
that the dependent of a teacher who
continues to work on the basis of session
benefit or being an awardee of a
national/State
award
after
attaining
superannuation
is
also
entitled
to
compassionate appointment, if the such
teacher dies within such period.

9. It is the specific case of the
petitioner that non-consideration of her
claim for compassionate appointment is
due to the fault of the department, as any
doubt, if at all, stood clarified way back by
the letter dated 14.10.1998 issued by the
Secretary, U.P. Basic Shiksha Parishad,
Allahabad. Hence, the petitioner cannot be
made to suffer due to the failure of the
department in keeping the matter pending
and
not
considering
her
case
for
compassionate appointment.

10.
The
object
of
grant
of
compassionate appointment to a dependent
of a deceased employee is to tide over the
immediate crisis so as to enable the family
of the deceased employee to get over the
financial crises caused by the death of the
sole bread earner. Out of pure humanitarian
condition and having regard to the fact that
unless one source of livelihood is provided,
the family would not be able to make both
ends meet, a provision is made for giving
gainful
employment
to
one
of
the
dependents of the deceased employee who
may be eligible for such appointment. Such
a provision makes a departure from the
general
provisions
providing
for
appointment to posts by following a
prescribed
procedure.
Since
such
a
provision enables appointment without
following the regular procedure, it is in the
nature of an exception to the general rule.

11. The Full Bench of this Court in the
case of Shiv Kumar Dubey vs. State of
U.P. and Ors. reported in 2014 SCC
Online All 16214 : (2015) 3 ALL LJ 420,
formulated
the
principles
governing
compassionate
appointment
under
the
Rules, 1974 in paragraph 29 of the
judgment. Paragraph 29 of the judgment is
reproduced herein below :-

"29.
We
now
proceed
to
formulate the principles which must govern
compassionate appointment in pursuance
of Dying in Harness Rules:

(i) A provision for compassionate
appointment is an exception to the
principle that there must be an equality of
opportunity
in
matters
of
public
employment.
The
exception
to
be
constitutionally valid has to be carefully
structured and implemented in order to
confine compassionate appointment to only
those situations which subserve the basic
object and purpose which is sought to be
achieved;

(ii) There is no general or vested
right to compassionate appointment.
Compassionate
appointment
can
be
claimed only where a scheme or rules
provide for such appointment. Where
such
a
provision
is
made
in
an
administrative scheme or statutory rules,
compassionate appointment must fall
strictly within the scheme or, as the case
may be, the rules;
11 All. Archana Gautam Vs. State of U.P.
747

(iii) The object and purpose of
providing compassionate appointment is to
enable the dependent members of the
family of a deceased employee to tide over
the immediate financial crisis caused by the
death of the bread-earner;

(iv) In determining as to whether
the family is in financial crisis, all relevant
aspects must be borne in mind including
the income of the family; its liabilities, the
terminal benefits received by the family;
the age, dependency and marital status of
its members, together with the income from
any other sources of employment;

(v) Where a long lapse of time
has occurred since the date of death of the
deceased employee, the sense of immediacy
for seeking compassionate appointment
would cease to exist and this would be a
relevant circumstance which must weigh
with the authorities in determining as to
whether
a
case
for
the
grant
of
compassionate appointment has been made
out;

(vi)
Rule
5
mandates
that
ordinarily,
an
application
for
compassionate appointment must be made
within five years of the date of death of the
deceased employee. The power conferred
by the first proviso is a discretion to relax
the period in a case of undue hardship and
for dealing with the case in a just and
equitable manner;

(vii) The burden lies on the
applicant, where there is a delay in making
an application within the period of five
years to establish a case on the basis of
reasons and a justification supported by
documentary and other evidence. It is for
the State Government after considering all
the facts to take an appropriate decision.
The power to relax is in the nature of an
exception and is conditioned by the
existence of objective considerations to the
satisfaction of the government;

(viii) Provisions for the grant of
compassionate
appointment
do
not
constitute a reservation of a post in favour
of a member of the family of the deceased
employee. Hence, there is no general right
which can be asserted to the effect that a
member of the family who was a minor at
the time of death would be entitled to claim
compassionate appointment upon attaining
majority. Where the rules provide for a
period of time within which an application
has to be made, the operation of the rule is
not suspended during the minority of a
member of the family."

12.
One
of
the
factors
for
consideration
of
compassionate
appointment,
as
per
the
principle
formulated at Sl. No. (v) of paragraph
29 is that if a long lapse of time has
occurred since the date of death of the
deceased
employee,
the
sense
of
immediacy for seeking compassionate
appointment would cease to exist and this
would be a relevant circumstance which
must
weigh
with
the
authorities
in
determining whether a case for the grant of
compassionate appointment has been made
out.

13. In the present case, the father of
the petitioner died way back in the year
1990 and thus, after the lapse of 35 years,
the sense of immediacy for seeking
compassionate appointment has came to an
end. The next question that arises for
consideration is that the petitioner filed the
writ petition in the year 2004 and it was the
departmental authorities who failed to take
any decision. Hence, due to the fault of the
748 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
departmental authorities, the petitioner
cannot be made to suffer, as her case for
compassionate appointment was never
considered by the department, though she
was entitled to such consideration.

14. The facts of the case indicate that
the sense of immediacy in the matter of
compassionate appointment has been lost,
which is attributable to the departmental
authorities to a great extent, but to some
extent to the petitioner also, as after the
death of the deceased employee in the year
1990 and submission of the application
seeking compassionate appointment way
back in the year 1993, the respondent filed
writ petition only in the year 2004, i.e.,
after 11 years of the submission of
application. Now at this juncture, to
entertain
a
claim
for
compassionate
appointment after 35 years of the death of
the deceased employee would be of no
avail, because admittedly, the dependents
of the deceased employee have been able to
eke out a living even though petitioner
could
not
secure
appointment
on
compassionate grounds. The compassionate
appointment is not source of recruitment
but is an exception to the general rule of
recruitment to tide over the immediate
crisis so as to enable the family of the
deceased employee to get over the financial
crises caused by the death of the sole bread
earner.

15. This Court is of the view that it is
not a fit case to direct the departmental
authorities
to
consider
the
case
of
appointment
of
the
petitioner
on
compassionate grounds after the lapse of 35
years from the death of the deceased
employee at this stage. At the same time,
the Court deprecates the manner in which
the departmental authorities dealt with the
application for compassionate appointment
of the petitioner. The delay on the part of
the departmental authorities in taking a
decision regarding such claims frustrates
the
very object
of
the
scheme
of
compassionate
appointment.
The
Government officials should act with
utmost proactiveness and immediacy while
deciding
claims
of
compassionate
appointment so as to ensure that the
wholesome object of the scheme is
fulfilled.

16. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of State of West Bengal
vs. Debabrata Tiwari and others reported
in (2025) 5 SCC 712 : 2023 SCC Online
SC 219, while dealing with a somewhat
similar issue, held that a direction for
consideration
of
compassionate
appointment after a long lapse of time
cannot be given as the sense of immediacy
stands
lost,
though
the
delay
was
attributable to the authorities of the
appellant-State as well. Paragraph 46 of the
judgment is reproduced herein below :-

"46. The sense of immediacy in
the matter of compassionate appointment
has been lost in the present case. This is
attributable to the authorities of the
Appellant-State
as
well
as
the
Respondents-Writ
Petitioners.
Now,
entertaining a claim which was made in
2005-2006, in the year 2023, would be of
no
avail,
because
admittedly,
the
Respondents-Writ Petitioners have been
able to eke out a living even though they
did not successfully get appointed to the
services
of
the
Municipality
on
compassionate grounds. Hence, we think
that this is therefore not fit cases to direct
that the claim of the Respondents-Writ
Petitioners
for
appointments
on
compassionate grounds, be considered or
entertained."
11 All. Ashok Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
749

17. In view of the above discussions,
this Court is not inclined to issue any such
direction for consideration of the case of
the petitioner for grant of compassionate
appointment after lapse of 35 years from
the death of the deceased employee.

18. The writ petition is, accordingly,
dismissed. No order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 11 ILRA 749
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 13.11.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ - A No. 2895 of 2023

Ashok Kumar Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Manoj
Kumar
Singh,
Ram
Chandra
Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Satyam Singh

Issue for Consideration
Legality of the order declaring the petitioner
guilty of willful negligent in the matter of
financial irregularity and embezzlement.

Headnotes
(A)
Service
law
-
Disciplinary
proceeding - Punishment - Surcharge,
determination
thereof
-
Willful
negligence
-
Charge
of
failure
in
discharging duties causing commitment
of
financial
irregularity
and
embezzlement
-
Inquiry
report
-
Liability for recovery of around Rs. 33
lacs was fixed - Charge was not denied
- Opportunity of hearing was provided
-
Effect
-
Despite
imposition
of
surcharge was found by Tribunal not
justified, but it could not be interfered
with - Permissibility :
Held : Petitioner before this Court has
submitted his reply to the notice issued
under Section 68(2) of Act, 1965 and has
recorded his statement also and has not
denied that being DGM, he was under duty
to conduct inspection of concerned Branch of
Bank,
however,
an
explanation
that
petitioner was not able to discharge duties
for certain reasons, such as he was over
burdened
of
other
works
such
as
Baidyanathan Committee, NABARD etc. was
rightly rejected by Registrar being not a
ground to become negligent and failed to
discharge his basic duties, such as regulation
inspection of Branches. A further explanation
that from 2006-07 to 2009-10 the financial
record does not have any variance, was
contrary to factual findings and petitioner
has not submitted explanation on other
issues. Therefore, there is no illegality in
impugned order, whereby petitioner was
found willful negligent. [Paras 18]
Held further : Despite Tribunal finds that there
was no justification to pass an order of
surcharge to the extent of 20% and despite it
being passed without any reason still it was not
interfered which appears to be an incorrect
approach. [Paras 21] (E- 1)

List of Acts
U.P. Cooperative Societies Act, 1965 - Section
66, 68(2).

List of Keywords
Co-operative
Bank;
Financial
irregularity;
Embezzlement;
Inquiry
report;
Charge;
Disciplinary proceeding; Minor Punishment;
Retiral dues; Determination of Surcharge;
Recovery;
Opportunity
of
hearing;
Willful
negligence; Compensation; Just and equitable.

Case Arising From
Order declaring the petitioner guilty of willful
negligent in the matter relating to commitment
of financial irregularity and embezzlement.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner : Ashok Khare, Senior
Advocate, Ram Chandra Srivastava
Advs. For the Respondent : Bal Mukund Singh