# Arvind Nath Tewari N- State v. Cane Commissioner U.P. Lucknow/ Chairman & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 9 ILRA 1012
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-09-12
- **Case number:** Writ - A No. 6421 of 1993
- **Bench:** Abdul Moin
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/arvind-nath-tewari-n-state-v-cane-commissioner-u-p-lucknow-chairman-ors-53844
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

C.S.C.,
Anad
Shanker
Asthana,
Paramanand Asthana

Issues for consideration
 Whether the appointment on a higher post
(than the post given) on compassionate
grounds, can be said to be in violation of the
Rules?

Headnotes
A.
Service
Law
-
Compassionate
appointment is an exception to the rule of
equality in public employment and the
appointment is only to be made in
accordance with the rules which in fact
has been done in the instant case. (Para
26)

On account of death of petitioner's father he
had been appointed on compassionate grounds
as seasonal clerk vide order dated 17.1.1987.
The petitioner finding himself qualified for a
higher post i.e. Assistant Accountant / Clerk
sent an application for being appointed on the
said post. The application was forwarded by the
Society wherein it was clearly indicated that the
petitioner was working on a seasonal post and
that he has moved an application for being
appointed as per his qualification on a higher
post. (Para 22)

Vide order dated 21.1.1991 passed by the
respondent no. 2 the petitioner was appointed
on
compassionate
grounds
as
Assistant
Accountant / Clerk in the pay scale of Rs 9501500.
Subsequently
vide
order
dated
14.12.1992 the petitioner was reverted to the
post of seasonal clerk on the ground that (a)
due selection process has not been followed
while appointing him as Assistant Accountant /
Clerk and (b) the petitioner was already working
on compassionate grounds as seasonal clerk
and
consequently
his
appointment
on
compassionate grounds again has been done in
violation of rules and without seeking approval
of the competent authority. The representation
filed by the petitioner against the cancellation
order was also rejected vide order dated
22.6.1993. Being aggrieved the petitioner
challenged the orders dated 14.12.1992 and
22.6.1993 before this Court in the instant
petition. This Court vide order dated 18.8.1993
stayed the operation of the orders dated
14.12.1992 and 22.6.1993 and on the basis of
the said order the petitioner continued to work
as an Assistant Accountant / Clerk and
thereafter retired on attaining the age of
superannuation on 31.5.2021. However the
retiral dues have not been given by the
respondents, either of the post of seasonal clerk
or the post of Assistant Accountant / Clerk.
(Para 23)

B. The application filed by the petitioner was
duly acceded by respondent no. 2 and the
petitioner
was
appointed
as
Assistant
Accountant / Clerk vide order dated 21.1.1991.
The petitioner, after his appointment, continued
to work on the higher post and thereafter
retired on attaining the age of superannuation
while working on the said post. It is not the
case of the respondents that any fraud or
misrepresentation was committed by the
petitioner while seeking his appointment
on compassionate grounds on a higher
post. (Para 25)

C. When he was appointed on a higher post and
the fact that the approval was to be sought
9 All. Arvind Nath Tewari N-State Vs. Cane Commissioner U.P. Lucknow/Chairman & Ors.
1013
from the competent authority by the respondent
no. 2 in which the petitioner had no role and
thus
the
fault
on
the
part
of
the
respondent no. 2 in not seeking approval
of the competent authority, if at all,
cannot be placed on the shoulders of the
petitioner so as to have enabled the
respondents
to
have
cancelled
the
appointment order of the petitioner. (Para
27)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Case Law Cited:

## Text

1012 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
27. In wake of the preceding
discussions, the writ petition is liable to be
dismissed and is dismissed.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 1012
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 12.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.

Writ - A No. 6421 of 1993

Arvind Nath Tewari N- State ...Petitioner
Versus
Cane
Commissioner
U.P.
Lucknow/
Chairman & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
M. Afzal, Dileep Kumar Srivastava, Jaideep
Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.,
Anad
Shanker
Asthana,
Paramanand Asthana

Issues for consideration
 Whether the appointment on a higher post
(than the post given) on compassionate
grounds, can be said to be in violation of the
Rules?

Headnotes
A.
Service
Law
-
Compassionate
appointment is an exception to the rule of
equality in public employment and the
appointment is only to be made in
accordance with the rules which in fact
has been done in the instant case. (Para
26)

On account of death of petitioner's father he
had been appointed on compassionate grounds
as seasonal clerk vide order dated 17.1.1987.
The petitioner finding himself qualified for a
higher post i.e. Assistant Accountant / Clerk
sent an application for being appointed on the
said post. The application was forwarded by the
Society wherein it was clearly indicated that the
petitioner was working on a seasonal post and
that he has moved an application for being
appointed as per his qualification on a higher
post. (Para 22)

Vide order dated 21.1.1991 passed by the
respondent no. 2 the petitioner was appointed
on
compassionate
grounds
as
Assistant
Accountant / Clerk in the pay scale of Rs 9501500.
Subsequently
vide
order
dated
14.12.1992 the petitioner was reverted to the
post of seasonal clerk on the ground that (a)
due selection process has not been followed
while appointing him as Assistant Accountant /
Clerk and (b) the petitioner was already working
on compassionate grounds as seasonal clerk
and
consequently
his
appointment
on
compassionate grounds again has been done in
violation of rules and without seeking approval
of the competent authority. The representation
filed by the petitioner against the cancellation
order was also rejected vide order dated
22.6.1993. Being aggrieved the petitioner
challenged the orders dated 14.12.1992 and
22.6.1993 before this Court in the instant
petition. This Court vide order dated 18.8.1993
stayed the operation of the orders dated
14.12.1992 and 22.6.1993 and on the basis of
the said order the petitioner continued to work
as an Assistant Accountant / Clerk and
thereafter retired on attaining the age of
superannuation on 31.5.2021. However the
retiral dues have not been given by the
respondents, either of the post of seasonal clerk
or the post of Assistant Accountant / Clerk.
(Para 23)

B. The application filed by the petitioner was
duly acceded by respondent no. 2 and the
petitioner
was
appointed
as
Assistant
Accountant / Clerk vide order dated 21.1.1991.
The petitioner, after his appointment, continued
to work on the higher post and thereafter
retired on attaining the age of superannuation
while working on the said post. It is not the
case of the respondents that any fraud or
misrepresentation was committed by the
petitioner while seeking his appointment
on compassionate grounds on a higher
post. (Para 25)

C. When he was appointed on a higher post and
the fact that the approval was to be sought
9 All. Arvind Nath Tewari N-State Vs. Cane Commissioner U.P. Lucknow/Chairman & Ors.
1013
from the competent authority by the respondent
no. 2 in which the petitioner had no role and
thus
the
fault
on
the
part
of
the
respondent no. 2 in not seeking approval
of the competent authority, if at all,
cannot be placed on the shoulders of the
petitioner so as to have enabled the
respondents
to
have
cancelled
the
appointment order of the petitioner. (Para
27)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Case Law Cited:
1. Union of India and another Vs. Raghuwar Pal
Singh, (2018) 15 SCC 463 (Para 16)
2. State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Premlata, (2022) 1
SCC 30 (Para 18)
3. Shiv Dutt Sharma Vs. State of U.P. and
others, 2025 SCC OnLine All 252 (Para 20)
4. General Manager, State Bank of India and
others Vs. Anju Jain, 2008(8) SCC 475) (Para
26)

List of Keywords
Service, salary, retiral benefits, qualification,
selection, compassionate appointment.

Appearances for Parties
For
Appellant:
M
Afzal,
Dileep
Kumar
Srivastava, Jaideep Srivastava
For
Respondent:
C.S.C,
Anand
Shanker
Asthana, Paramanand Asthana

(Delivered by Hon'ble Abdul Moin, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner,
Shri
Parmanand
Asthana,
learned counsel for the respondents no. 1 to
4 and Shri Anand Shankar Asthana, learned
counsel for the respondent no. 5.

2. Learned counsel for the parties
contend that the issue involved in WRIT
- A No. - 6421 of 1993 and WRIT - A
No. - 8574 of 2023 are the same. As
such, the Court proceeds to hear both the
writ petitions together. For convenience,
facts of Writ A No. 6421 of 1993 are
being taken.
3. By means of the instant petition
the petitioner has prayed for quashing of
order dated 14.12.1992, passed by the
respondent no. 2 and 22.6.1993 passed by
the respondent no. 1, copies of which are
annexure 4 and 8 respectively to the writ
petition. Further prayer is for a writ of
mandamus commanding the respondents to
allow the petitioner to continue on the post
of Assistant Accountant and to pay his
salary regularly each month.

4. In Writ A No. 8574 of 2023 the
prayer is for a writ of mandamus
commanding the respondents to pay the
retiral benefits to the petitioner within
specified time.

5. The case set forth by learned
counsel for the petitioner is that the
petitioner?s father namely Shri Ram Kishan
Tiwari was working as a seasonal clerk
under the respondent no. 5 Society who
died in harness. The petitioner staked his
claim
for
being
appointed
on
compassionate grounds. The respondents
vide order dated 17.1.1987, a copy of
which is annexure CA-1 to the counter
affidavit filed on behalf of respondents no.
1 to 4, appointed the petitioner as a
seasonal clerk. It has been pointed out by
Shri Parmanand Asthana that in the
proposal that had been sent by the
Committee of Management of the Society
the claim of the petitioner was required to
be considered on compassionate grounds
which in fact resulted in order dated
17.1.1987 appointing the petitioner as a
seasonal clerk.

6.
Subsequent
thereto,
the
petitioner finding himself having higher
qualifications than that prescribed for the
post of seasonal clerk and being fit for
being appointed on the post of Assistant
1014 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Accountant / Clerk sent an application for
being appointed on the said post. A copy of
the application is annexure A2A to the writ
petition.
The
said
application
was
forwarded
by
the
society
vide
its
applications, copies of which are annexures
A2B and A2C the writ petition. The perusal
of the said applications would indicate that
the society has clearly indicated that the
petitioner was working on a seasonal post
and that he has moved application for being
appointed as per his qualification on a
higher post. In pursuance thereto vide order
dated 21.1.1991, a copy of which is
annexure 3 to the writ petition, passed by
the respondent no. 2 the petitioner was
appointed on compassionate grounds as
Assistant Accountant / Clerk in the pay
scale of Rs 950-1500.

7.
Later,
vide
order
dated
14.12.1992, a copy of which is annexure 4 to
the writ petition, the petitioner was reverted
to the post of seasonal clerk on the ground
that (a) due selection process has not been
followed while appointing him as Assistant
Accountant / Clerk, (b) the petitioner was
already working on compassionate grounds
as seasonal clerk and (c) the appointment of
the petitioner had been done in violation of
rules without seeking approval from the
competent authority.

8. The petitioner submitted a
representation against the same which has
been rejected vide order dated 22.6.1993, a
copy of which is annexure 8 to the writ
petition, by the Cane Commissioner i.e.
respondent no. 1.

9. Being aggrieved by both the
orders, the instant petition is filed.

10. This Court vide order dated
18.8.1993 stayed the operation of the
orders dated 14.12.1992 and 22.6.1993. On
the basis of the said stay order, the
petitioner continued to work as Assistant
Accountant / Clerk. The writ petition itself
was dismissed for non prosecution on
30.11.2012. Despite that, the petitioner
continued to work as Assistant Accountant
/ Clerk and retired on attaining the age of
superannuation on 31.5.2021. When the
petitioner was not paid any retiral dues he
was constrained to file Writ A no. 8574 of
2023 praying for being paid his retiral dues.
Subsequent thereto the Writ A No. 6421 of
1993 has been restored on 21.5.2025.

11. It is admitted by learned
counsel for the respondents that no retiral
dues have been paid to the petitioner either
of the post of seasonal clerk or of the post
of Assistant Accountant / Clerk.

12. While raising a challenge to the
orders impugned dated 14.12.1992 and
22.6.1993, the argument of learned counsel
for the petitioner is that there has been no
concealment on his part in securing
appointment of Assistant Accountant /
Clerk in as much as in the application
that he had moved before the competent
authority it was specifically indicated that
he was working as a seasonal clerk and
that he should be given some post as per
his qualification which application was
duly forwarded by the Society and was
acceded to which has resulted in he being
appointed vide order dated 21.1.1991 as
Assistant
Accountant
/
Clerk
and
consequently the reversion order by
indicating that as the petitioner had
already been appointed on compassionate
grounds as seasonal clerk and there
would not be any occasion for he to be
again
appointed
on
compassionate
grounds as Assistant Accountant /Clerk is
patently misconceived.
9 All. Arvind Nath Tewari N-State Vs. Cane Commissioner U.P. Lucknow/Chairman & Ors.
1015
13. The further argument is that
once the appointment order was issued as
Assistant Accountant / Clerk the petitioner
joined and started working as Assistant
Accountant / Clerk and thereafter despite
the reversion order dated 14.12.1992 and
on the basis of the stay order granted by
this Court dated 18.8.1993 the petitioner
continued to function as an Assistant
Accountant / Clerk and thereafter retired on
attaining the age of superannuation on
31.5.2021 and the fact that there was no
concealment on his part in he having been
appointed as Assistant Accountant / Clerk
consequently merely because respondent
no. 5 did not get the approval of the
Committee of Management of the Regional
Cane Service Authority Gorakhpur and the
petitioner had no role in getting the said
approval and once he has continued all
along and discharged the duty of the post of
Assistant Accountant / Clerk consequently
it would be too late in the day now, having
been appointed in the year 1991, for the
respondents to aver that the approval of the
competent authority was not given to the
appointment of the petitioner.

14. The other argument is that a
perusal of the other ground taken in the
order impugned indicates that due selection
process was not followed for making
appointment on the post of Assistant
Accountant / Clerk. In this regard the
argument is that it is settled position of law
that compassionate appointment is an
exception to the main recruitment process
and once the petitioner had been appointed
on compassionate grounds consequently
the respondents cannot say that the
selection process as was provided for
making appointment on the said post would
be applicable in as much as the petitioner
had been appointed on compassionate
grounds and not as direct recruit thus it is
contended that the reversion order merits to
be set aside and the respondents be directed
to pay all the retiral dues considering the
service rendered by the petitioner as
Assistant Accountant / Clerk.

15. Per contra, Shri Anand Shankar
Asthana as well as Shri Parmanand
Asthana,
learned
counsels
for
the
respondents argue that once the petitioner
had only been appointed on compassionate
grounds in the year 1987 consequently
there was no occasion for him to be again
appointed on compassionate grounds as has
been done in the instant case in the year
1991. Upon the said facts been discovered,
the reversion order dated 14.12.1992 had
been passed and even the representation
filed against the same was also rejected by
the competent authority vide order dated
22.6.1993.

16. The further argument of learned
counsel for the respondents is that once
there was no approval given by the
competent authority i.e. Committee of
Management of the Regional Cane Service
Authority Gorakhpur for the appointment
of the petitioner on the post of Assistant
Accountant / Clerk consequently no error
has been committed by the respondents in
reverting him from the said post of
Assistant Accountant Clerk and sending
him back to the original post which he was
holding i.e. seasonal clerk and there was no
requirement of giving any opportunity of
hearing as per the law laid down by
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Union of India and another vs Raghuwar
Pal Singh, (2018) 15 SCC 463.

17.
Learned
counsel
for
the
respondents have also argued that the
petitioner did not raise any challenge to his
compassionate appointment on the post of
1016 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
seasonal clerk and thus it would be deemed
that he has accepted his appointment as
seasonal clerk and consequently there
would be no occasion for the respondents
to have appointed him on compassionate
grounds
on
the
post
of
Assistant
Accountant / Clerk.

18. Another argument raised by
learned counsel for the respondents is that
as per law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of State of Uttar
Pradesh vs Premlata (2022) 1 SCC 30 a
person can only be given appointment on
compassionate grounds considering the
post that was held by the deceased
employee on the basis of which the
dependents claim appointment.

19. The argument is that as the
father of the petitioner was only a seasonal
clerk consequently the petitioner could not
have been appointed as an Assistant
Accountant / Clerk and he was correctly
given appointment on the post of seasonal
clerk.

20.
Learned
counsel
for
the
respondents have also placed reliance on a
judgement of Division Bench of this Court in
the case of Shiv Dutt Sharma vs State of
U.P. and others, 2025 SCC OnLine All 252
to contend that in similar circumstances this
Court has upheld the cancellation of a
subsequent
order
of
compassionate
appointment and thus it is contended that
merely because the petitioner continued to
work as Assistant Accountant / Clerk and
retired on attaining the age of superannuation
on 31.5.2021 he would not be entitled for any
retiral dues on the basis of the working as
Assistant Accountant / Clerk.

21. Heard learned counsel for the
parties and perused the record.
22. From perusal of the record it
emerges that on account of death of
petitioner?s father he had been appointed
on compassionate grounds as seasonal clerk
vide order dated 17.1.1987. The petitioner
finding himself qualified for a higher post
i.e. Assistant Accountant / Clerk sent an
application for being appointed on the said
post. The application was forwarded by the
Society wherein it was clearly indicated
that the petitioner was working on a
seasonal post and that he has moved an
application for being appointed as per his
qualification on a higher post.

23. Vide order dated 21.1.1991
passed by the respondent no. 2 the
petitioner was appointed on compassionate
grounds as Assistant Accountant / Clerk in
the pay scale of Rs 950-1500. Subsequently
vide order dated 14.12.1992 the petitioner
was reverted to the post of seasonal clerk
on the ground that (a) due selection process
has not been followed while appointing
him as Assistant Accountant / Clerk and (b)
the petitioner was already working on
compassionate grounds as seasonal clerk
and consequently his appointment on
compassionate grounds again has been
done in violation of rules and without
seeking
approval
of
the
competent
authority. The representation filed by the
petitioner against the cancellation order
was
also
rejected
vide
order
dated
22.6.1993. Being aggrieved the petitioner
challenged the orders dated 14.12.1992 and
22.6.1993 before this Court in the instant
petition. This Court vide order dated
18.8.1993 stayed the operation of the
orders dated 14.12.1992 and 22.6.1993 and
on the basis of the said order the petitioner
continued
to
work
as
an
Assistant
Accountant / Clerk and thereafter retired on
attaining the age of superannuation on
31.5.2021. However the retiral dues have
9 All. Arvind Nath Tewari N-State Vs. Cane Commissioner U.P. Lucknow/Chairman & Ors.
1017
not been given by the respondents, either of
the post of seasonal clerk or the post of
Assistant Accountant / Clerk.

24. The contention of learned
counsel for the respondents is that once the
petitioner had already been appointed on
the post of seasonal clerk on compassionate
grounds there could not be any occasion for
he to be appointed on compassionate
grounds again vide order dated 14.12.1992
more particularly when there was no
approval from the competent authority
pertaining to his appointment on higher
post. It is also contended that the
appointment of the petitioner on a higher
post was in violation of the Rules.

25. The aforesaid grounds as taken
by the respondents are found to be patently
fallacious and misconceived. The reasons
are not far to seek. The application was
filed
by
the
petitioner
seeking
his
compassionate appointment on higher post
as per his qualification which was duly
forwarded by the society indicating the
petitioner
having
been
appointed
on
compassionate grounds on seasonal post
and
he
seeking
his
compassionate
appointment on a higher post which was
duly acceded by respondent no. 2 and the
petitioner was appointed as Assistant
Accountant / Clerk vide order dated
21.1.1991.
The
petitioner,
after
his
appointment, continued to work on the
higher post and thereafter retired on
attaining the age of superannuation while
working on the said post. It is not the case
of the respondents that any fraud or
misrepresentation was committed by the
petitioner while seeking his appointment on
compassionate grounds on a higher post
rather, as already indicated above, the
application was duly forwarded by the
Society indicating the fact of the petitioner
having
earlier
been
appointed
on
compassionate grounds and the same found
favour with the respondent no. 2 when the
appointment order of the petitioner was
issued on a higher post. Thus the grounds
taken by the respondents are misconceived
and are accordingly rejected.

26. So far as the ground that the
rules were not followed while making
appointment on the post of Assistant
Accountant / Clerk suffice to state that
compassionate appointment is an exception
to
the
rule
of
equality
in
public
employment and the appointment is only to
be made in accordance with the rules which
in fact has been done in the instant case
(see General Manager, State Bank of
India and others vs Anju Jain, 2008(8)
SCC 475).

27.
The
ground
that
the
appointment order was not approved by the
competent authority looses all relevance at
this stage of time considering the fact that
again, no fraud or misrepresentation was
committed by the petitioner when he was
appointed on a higher post and the fact that
the approval was to be sought from the
competent authority by the respondent no.
2 in which the petitioner had no role and
thus the fault on the part of the respondent
no. 2 in not seeking approval of the
competent authority, if at all, cannot be
placed on the shoulders of the petitioner so
as to have enabled the respondents to have
cancelled the appointment order of the
petitioner. Thus the said ground is also
rejected.

28. As regards the judgement of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Raghuwar Pal Singh (supra) the same
would have no applicability in the facts of
the instant case in as much as the said case
1018 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
was not one of compassionate appointment.
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that where
an appointment order could only be issued
by an authorized officer after obtaining
approval of competent authority and the
said appointment order having been issued
by lack of authority, would be a nullity in
the eyes of law. Here, the said principle
would not be applicable considering the
fact that compassionate appointment is an
exception to the main rule and the fact that
the petitioner continued to serve on the
higher post after he had been appointed and
has also retired on attaining the age of
superannuation while working on a higher
post. Thus the said judgement would have
no applicability in the facts of the case.

29. So far as the judgement of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Premlata (supra) is concerned, the same
pertains to Hon'ble Supreme Court having
held that the appointment of a dependent on
compassionate grounds would be to a post
held by the deceased employee. There
cannot be any dispute to the aforesaid
proposition of law as laid down by Hon'ble
Supreme Court but in the instant case the
respondents had already appointed the
petitioner on a higher post in the year 1991
and the petitioner continued to work on the
higher post till his superannuation in the
year 2021 i.e. for the period of 30 years as
such the aforesaid judgement would have
no applicability in the facts of the instant
case.

30. As regards judgement of this
Court in the case of Shiv Dutt Sharma
(supra) though the same pertains to the
issue as to once a person having availed the
benefit of appointment on compassionate
grounds could again claim appointment on
higher post on compassionate grounds, has
been answered in the negative by this
Court. But in the case in hand, the
petitioner
has
already
been
given
compassionate appointment on a higher
post and he having served for more than 30
years has retired while working on a higher
post and as such the said judgement would
not be of any help to the respondents.

31. Keeping in view the aforesaid
discussion, the writ petition is allowed. The
orders impugned dated 14.12.1992 and
22.6.1993, copies of which are annexure 4
and 8 to the writ petition are set aside.

32. A writ of mandamus is issued
commanding the respondents to pay all
retiral dues of petitioner of the post of
Assistant Accountant / Clerk. Let the
respondents comply with this order within
a period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt
of a certified copy of this order.
----------
(2025) 9 ILRA 1018
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 22.09.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.

Writ - A No. 7815 of 2024

Laljee ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Satyanshu Ojha

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Raj Kr. Singh Suryvanshi

Issues for consideration
Whether the services of an employee who
acquires a disability during his/her service, are
to be dispensed with or efforts are to be made
by the employer for shifting him to a suitable