# Atul Kumar v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 7 ILRA 798
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-07-14
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 9438 of 2025
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/atul-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53650
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

C.S.C., Sanjay Kumar Singh

Issue for consideration
Whether petitioner's candidature fulfils the
requirements as enshrined under the Uttar
Pradesh
Recruitment
of
Dependents
of
Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules,
1974?

Headnotes

A.
Uttar
Pradesh
Recruitment
of
Dependents
of
Government
Servants
Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 Rule 5 - Facts
of the case are that petitioner's mother late
Savitri Devi was working as an Assistant
Teacher in a Junior High School, Barauli, Block
Nagra, District Ballia. She died-in harness on
06th July, 2020. The petitioner moved a
representation before the third respondent on
29th September, 2021 for his appointment on
compassionate ground on the post of peon,
however, it failed to elicit any response. The
impugned order dated 30th May, 2025 has been
passed whereby the claim for compassionate
appointment of the petitioner has been rejected,
which is under challenge in the present writ
petition. (Para 2)

B.
The
whole
object
of
granting
compassionate appointment is to provide
succour to the indigent family of a
deceased employee so as to tide over the
sudden crisis and financial destitution.
(Para 6)

C.
Compassionate
appointment
is
a
concession and not a right and the criteria
laid down in the Rules must be satisfied
by all aspirants. The applicant dependent
must strictly fall within the parameters as on the
date of the death of government servant,
besides the fact that the appointment is neither
a right nor an alternative source of recruitment.
(Para 7, 9)

Dependents of the deceased Government
employee are made eligible by virtue of
the policy on compassionate appointment
and they must fulfil the norms laid down
7 All. Atul Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
799
by the State's policy. The norms prevailing on
the date of consideration of the application
should be the basis for consideration of claim
for compassionate appointment. (Para 8)

As regards, the condition u/Rule-5 that one
member of deceased employee's family shall be
given employment, in case spouse of the
deceased Government Servant is not already
employed under the Government establishment,
exists since introduction of the Rules, 1974.
Insofar as the opportunity of hearing is
concerned, the petitioner had submitted all
relevant documents before the authority along
with his application dated 28th February, 2025,
but he failed to turn up for personal hearing
while he was called on 04th April, 2025. (Para
11)

The petitioner does not fulfil the criteria as
framed u/Rule-5 of the Rules, 1974 as his father
(spouse of deceased employee) is an Assistant
Teacher in a Primary School run by the U.P.
Basic Education Board and in view of the settled
position of law, it is inevitable the dependent
must strictly fall within the parameters as on the
date of death of government servant and must
fulfil the norms laid down by policy of State
Government, for consideration of employment
on compassionate ground. (Para 12)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Case Law Cited

## Text

798 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
deceased who is employed in CISF is not
maintaining the family. According to the
petitioner his income could not be included in
the income of the family which was computed
by the bank authorities. However, these material
aspects were not considered while passing the
impugned order.

31. The impugned orders dated
29.08.2018 and 14.09.2018 neglect to consider
the
aforesaid
germane
aspects
while
invalidating the claim of the petitioners. The
impugned orders dated 29.08.2018 and
14.09.2018 are vitiated on account of non
application of mind to relevant consideration.

32. In this wake, the impugned orders
dated 29.08.2018 and 14.09.2018 are quashed.

33. The matter is remitted to the
respondents-authorities who shall decide the
claim of the petitioner after considering all
relevant
factors
including
the
financial
condition of the family of the deceased in light
of above observations and as per law within a
period of three months from the date of receipt
of a certified copy of this order.

34. The writ petition is allowed to
the extent indicated above.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 798
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.07.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Writ-A No. 9438 of 2025
Atul Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Hridaya Narain Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sanjay Kumar Singh

Issue for consideration
Whether petitioner's candidature fulfils the
requirements as enshrined under the Uttar
Pradesh
Recruitment
of
Dependents
of
Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules,
1974?

Headnotes

A.
Uttar
Pradesh
Recruitment
of
Dependents
of
Government
Servants
Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 Rule 5 - Facts
of the case are that petitioner's mother late
Savitri Devi was working as an Assistant
Teacher in a Junior High School, Barauli, Block
Nagra, District Ballia. She died-in harness on
06th July, 2020. The petitioner moved a
representation before the third respondent on
29th September, 2021 for his appointment on
compassionate ground on the post of peon,
however, it failed to elicit any response. The
impugned order dated 30th May, 2025 has been
passed whereby the claim for compassionate
appointment of the petitioner has been rejected,
which is under challenge in the present writ
petition. (Para 2)

B.
The
whole
object
of
granting
compassionate appointment is to provide
succour to the indigent family of a
deceased employee so as to tide over the
sudden crisis and financial destitution.
(Para 6)

C.
Compassionate
appointment
is
a
concession and not a right and the criteria
laid down in the Rules must be satisfied
by all aspirants. The applicant dependent
must strictly fall within the parameters as on the
date of the death of government servant,
besides the fact that the appointment is neither
a right nor an alternative source of recruitment.
(Para 7, 9)

Dependents of the deceased Government
employee are made eligible by virtue of
the policy on compassionate appointment
and they must fulfil the norms laid down
7 All. Atul Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
799
by the State's policy. The norms prevailing on
the date of consideration of the application
should be the basis for consideration of claim
for compassionate appointment. (Para 8)

As regards, the condition u/Rule-5 that one
member of deceased employee's family shall be
given employment, in case spouse of the
deceased Government Servant is not already
employed under the Government establishment,
exists since introduction of the Rules, 1974.
Insofar as the opportunity of hearing is
concerned, the petitioner had submitted all
relevant documents before the authority along
with his application dated 28th February, 2025,
but he failed to turn up for personal hearing
while he was called on 04th April, 2025. (Para
11)

The petitioner does not fulfil the criteria as
framed u/Rule-5 of the Rules, 1974 as his father
(spouse of deceased employee) is an Assistant
Teacher in a Primary School run by the U.P.
Basic Education Board and in view of the settled
position of law, it is inevitable the dependent
must strictly fall within the parameters as on the
date of death of government servant and must
fulfil the norms laid down by policy of State
Government, for consideration of employment
on compassionate ground. (Para 12)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Case Law Cited

1. Ravi Kumar Jeph Vs. Joint Director & Anr.
Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No(s). 25916
of 2025 (Para 10)
2.
Steel
Authority
of
India
Limited
Vs.
Madhusudan Das & Ors., (2008) 15 SCC 560
(Para 7)
3. The Director of Treasuries in Karnataka & Anr.
Vs. V. Somyashree, AIR 2021 SC 5620 (Para 8)
4. Ravi Kumar Jeph Vs. Joint Director, Office of
the Chief Commissioner, CGST and Central
Excise (Jaipur Zone), Jaipur, Rajasthan &
another, D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4928 of
2020; 2023:RJ-JP:41338-DB (Para 9)

List of Acts
Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of
Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules,
1974.
List of Keywords
 Service Law; compassionate appointment.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Mrs. Manju Rani
Chauhan, J.)

1. The petitioner, a dependent of an
Assistant Teacher who died in-harness, has
preferred instant writ petition challenging
an order dated 30th May, 2025 passed by
the third respondent1, whereby claim for
appointment on compassionate ground has
been denied on the ground that his
candidature does not fulfil the requirements
as enshrined under the Uttar Padesh
Recruitment of Dependents of Government
Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.

2. Facts of the case are that
petitioner's mother late Savitri Devi was
working as an Assistant Teacher in a Junior
High School, Barauli, Block Nagra, District
Ballia. She died-in harness on 06th July,
2020.
The
petitioner
moved
a
representation before the third respondent
on
29th
September,
2021
for
his
appointment on compassionate ground on
the post of peon, however, it failed to elicit
any response. Aggrieved thereby, the
petitioner preferred a writ petition before
this Court i.e. Writ-A No. 1278 of 20252.
Said writ petition was disposed of by order
dated 04th February, 2025 with a direction
that if the required papers and documents
are submitted by the petitioner within one
month, the third respondent shall take
decision thereon. Pursuant thereto, the
impugned order dated 30th May, 2025 has
been passed whereby the claim for
compassionate
appointment
of
the
petitioner has been rejected, which is under
challenge in the present writ petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submits that the petitioner fulfils all the
800 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
requisite qualifications for compassionate
appointment, due to death of his mother, as
required
under
the
Uttar
Padesh
Recruitment of Dependents of Government
Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 19743.
He has drawn the attention of the Court to
Annexure-10, which is a notification of
Government of Uttar Pradesh dated 27th
December, 2022, introducing the thirteenth
amendment
i.e.
the
Uttar
Pradesh
Recruitment of Dependent of Government
Servants Dying in Harness (Thirteenth
Amendment) Rules, 2022. Emphasizing
thereupon,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner submits that petitioner's mother
passed away on 06th July, 2020, therefore,
the order impugned passed on the basis of
the aforementioned Rules, is illegal as the
said Rules do not have retrospective effect.

4. It has further been contended by
learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner lives separately and has no
connection with his father and sister, thus,
he is entitled for being appointed on
compassionate ground as his mother died in
harness. He next argued that the order
impugned
has
been
passed
without
affording any notice or opportunity of
hearing to the petitioner.

5.

Learned
counsel
for
the
respondents
has
made
vehement
submission that the petitioner's father and
sister both are Government Servants and in
view of the requisite conditions for
appointment on compassionate ground as
stipulated under Rule-5 of the Rules, 1974,
which enumerates that one member of
deceased employee's family shall be given
employment, in case 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, the petitioner is not entitled
for appointment on compassionate ground
after the demise of his mother who died in
harness.

6. It is an admitted fact that
petitioner's father is an Assistant Teacher in
a Primary School run by the Board of Basic
Education, U.P. and the whole object of
granting compassionate appointment is to
provide succour to the indigent family of a
deceased employee so as to tide over the
sudden crisis and financial destitution.

7. The Apex Court in the case of Steel
Authority
of
India
Limited
v.
Madhusudan Das & Ors.4, has remarked
that compassionate appointment is a
concession and not a right and the criteria
laid down in the Rules must be satisfied by
all aspirants.

8. In the case of The Director of
Treasuries in Karnataka & Anr. v. V.
Somyashree5, the Supreme Court has
observed that dependents of the deceased
Government employee are made eligible by
virtue of the policy on compassionate
appointment and they must fulfil the norms
laid down by the State's policy. The Court
has further held that the norms prevailing
on the date of consideration of the
application should be the basis for
consideration of claim for compassionate
appointment.

9. Following the aforementioned
judgements of Apex Court, a Division
Bench of Rajasthan High Court in the case
of Ravi Kumar Jeph v. Joint Director,
Office of the Chief Commissioner, CGST
and Central Excise (Jaipur Zone),
Jaipur, Rajasthan & another6, has held as
under:
7 All. Vikrant Sengar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
801

"18. ...the principles pertaining to
the
nature
of
claim
made
by
the
dependents, its consideration based on the
parameters as laid down in the relevant Rules,
that also with the emphasis that the applicantdependent must strictly fall within the
parameters as on the date of the death of
government servant, are well established
besides the fact that the appointment is neither a
right nor an alternative source of recruitment."

(emphasis supplied)

10. The aforementioned judgement of
Rajasthan High Court in Ravi Kumar Jeph
(supra), was challenged before the Apex Court
by means of Special Leave Petition (Civil)
Diary No(s). 25916 of 20257. The Apex Court
vide its judgement dated 17.06.2025 has
dismissed the petition on the ground of delay as
well as on merits, observing that there is no
ground to interfere with the order challenged
therein.

11. The arguments advanced by the
learned counsel for the petitioner regarding nonapplicability of Rule-5 of the Rules, 1974 in
petitioner's case and not giving opportunity of
hearing before passing the order impugned,
have no merit acceptance. As regards, the
condition under Rule-5 that one member of
deceased employee's family shall be given
employment, in case spouse of the deceased
Government Servant is not already employed
under the Government establishment, exists
since introduction of the Rules, 1974. Insofar as
the opportunity of hearing is concerned, the
petitioner had submitted all relevant documents
before the authority along with his application
dated 28th February, 2025, but he failed to turn
up for personal hearing while he was called on
04th April, 2025.

12. In view of the aforesaid, admittedly
the petitioner does not fulfil the criteria as
framed under Rule-5 of the Rules, 1974 as his
father (spouse of deceased employee) is an
Assistant Teacher in a Primary School run by
the U.P. Basic Education Board and in view of
the settled position of law, discussed in
preceding paragraphs, it is inevitable the
dependent must strictly fall within the
parameters as on the date of death of
government servant and must fulfil the
norms laid down by policy of State
Government,
for
consideration
of
employment on compassionate ground.

13. I do not find it a fit case to be
interfered with. The writ petition lacks
merit, hence stands dismissed.

14. No order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 801
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.07.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Writ-A No. 17732 of 2022

Vikrant Sengar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Opp. Parties

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Chandan Sharma, Sri Jadu Nandan Yadav, Sri
Pranvesh

Counsel for the Opp. Parties:
Sri Akhilesh Chandra Srivastava, C.S.C., Sri
Gaurav Bishan

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether dismissal from service on the
ground
of
fraudulent
compassionate
appointment, obtained by suppression of