# Deepak Kumar & Ors v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 7 ILRA 492
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-07-24
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 21425 of 2019
- **Bench:** Ajit Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/deepak-kumar-ors-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53577
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

C.S.C.

Issue for Consideration
The petitioner's salary was withheld on the
ground that an investigation indicated he had
fraudulently recorded his date of birth as
01.08.1970, whereas a school record for one
Yagya Narayan showed the date of birth as
02.11.1961.The main issue for consideration
before the court "Whether the date of birth of
the petitioner once entered into service at the
time of entry into service could be changed by
investigating into his date of birth on a third
party complaint subsequently, more specially
when such an employee is not high school pass
out".

Headnotes
Service law- Determination of Date of
Birth Rules, 1974-Date of birth-Correction
or changed-Admissibility-Date of birth of
an employee who has not passed the High
School Certificate cannot be changed once
originally recorded at the time of entry in
service-The
Rules,1974
are
fully
applicable-The Court quashed the order
passed by the Executive engineer, Baghla
Kanal Project, Prayagraj which withheld
the payment of the petitioner's salaryPetition allowed.

Held
An order to withhold the salary of an employee,
including one passed during an enquiry or
investigation into their DoB, carries adverse civil
consequences-Such an order is not sustainable
without providing the petitioner notice or an
opportunity of hearing-The petitioner's recorded
date of birth of 01.08.1970 in the service book
shall be continued and used as the basis for his
service-Shall be entitled to the entire salary
which has remained withheld and also current
salary
until
he
attains
the
age
of
superannuation-The order dated 27.11.2019
passed by the Executive Engineer,Baghla Kanal
Project, Prayagraj, which withheld the payment
of the petitioner's salary and the order dated
14.112019 passed by the Superintending
Engineer,
which
directed
for
a
fresh
investigaiton and enquiry into the petitioner's
date of birth are quashed.(Para 12 to 15) (E-6)
7 All. Deepak Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors..
493
List of Acts
Determination of Date of Birth Rules,1974

List of Keywords
Daily wager; Executive Engineer, Internal
Inhouse enquiry; Kanhar Kanal Project Division,
Baghla
Kanal
Project;
Service
book;
Superannuation; Permanent employee.

Case Arising From
Service Law- WRIT-A No. - 20013 of 2019
From

the
Judgment
and
order
dated
17.07.2025 of the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabd.

Yagya Narayan Sen Vs. State of U.P. & 3
Ors

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for Petitioner:
Prabhakar Awasthi
Advs. for Respondent: Ashok Kumar Yadav,
C.S.C., Lokesh Kumar Dwivedi

## Text

492 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
14.10.2019
passed
by
Superintendent
Engineer.

14. Thus, the order passed by the
Superintendent Engineer dated 14.11.2019 is
also not sustainable in view of the aforesaid
rules. I take judicial notice of the order dated
14.11.2019 also because it has laid the
foundation for the order impugned dated
27.11.2019 and hence while the order dated
27.11.2019 deserves to be quashed the order
dated 14.11.2019 equally deserves to be
quashed.

15. Writ petition succeeds and is allowed.
The order impugned dated 27.11.2019 passed
by the Executive Engineer, Baghla Kanal
Project, Prayagraj witholding payment of salary
of the petitioner brought as Annexure-8 to the
writ petition and order passed by the
Superintending Engineer dated 14.11.2019
directing for fresh investigation and enquiry are
hereby quashed. The petitioner shall be
continued in service on the basis of his date of
birth recorded as 01.08.1970 in the service book
and shall be entitled to entire salary which has
remained witheld and also the current salary
until he attains the age of superannuation.

16. Service book is returned to the
learned Standing Counsel.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 492
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.07.2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ A No. 21425 of 2019

Deepak Kumar & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Seemant Singh
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Issue for Consideration
The petitioner's salary was withheld on the
ground that an investigation indicated he had
fraudulently recorded his date of birth as
01.08.1970, whereas a school record for one
Yagya Narayan showed the date of birth as
02.11.1961.The main issue for consideration
before the court "Whether the date of birth of
the petitioner once entered into service at the
time of entry into service could be changed by
investigating into his date of birth on a third
party complaint subsequently, more specially
when such an employee is not high school pass
out".

Headnotes
Service law- Determination of Date of
Birth Rules, 1974-Date of birth-Correction
or changed-Admissibility-Date of birth of
an employee who has not passed the High
School Certificate cannot be changed once
originally recorded at the time of entry in
service-The
Rules,1974
are
fully
applicable-The Court quashed the order
passed by the Executive engineer, Baghla
Kanal Project, Prayagraj which withheld
the payment of the petitioner's salaryPetition allowed.

Held
An order to withhold the salary of an employee,
including one passed during an enquiry or
investigation into their DoB, carries adverse civil
consequences-Such an order is not sustainable
without providing the petitioner notice or an
opportunity of hearing-The petitioner's recorded
date of birth of 01.08.1970 in the service book
shall be continued and used as the basis for his
service-Shall be entitled to the entire salary
which has remained withheld and also current
salary
until
he
attains
the
age
of
superannuation-The order dated 27.11.2019
passed by the Executive Engineer,Baghla Kanal
Project, Prayagraj, which withheld the payment
of the petitioner's salary and the order dated
14.112019 passed by the Superintending
Engineer,
which
directed
for
a
fresh
investigaiton and enquiry into the petitioner's
date of birth are quashed.(Para 12 to 15) (E-6)
7 All. Deepak Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors..
493
List of Acts
Determination of Date of Birth Rules,1974

List of Keywords
Daily wager; Executive Engineer, Internal
Inhouse enquiry; Kanhar Kanal Project Division,
Baghla
Kanal
Project;
Service
book;
Superannuation; Permanent employee.

Case Arising From
Service Law- WRIT-A No. - 20013 of 2019
From

the
Judgment
and
order
dated
17.07.2025 of the High Court of Judicature at
Allahabd.

Yagya Narayan Sen Vs. State of U.P. & 3
Ors

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for Petitioner:
Prabhakar Awasthi
Advs. for Respondent: Ashok Kumar Yadav,
C.S.C., Lokesh Kumar Dwivedi

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Sri Seemant Singh, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioners,
learned
Additional
Chief
Standing
appearing for the State-respondents and
perused the records.

2. By this petition filed under Article
226 of the Constitution, petitioners have
prayed for a writ of certiorari for quashing
the order dated 17.10.2019, whereby the
petitioners were declared 'unsuccessful' in
the test of 'Stenography' and their claims
have been rejected.

3. At present, learned counsel submits
that petitioners are only pressing for relief
no.3, according to which, petitioners have
prayed that their candidature may be
considered for compassionate appointment
as per Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of
Dependants
of
Government
Servants
Dying-in-Harness
(11th
Amendment)
Rules, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Rules 2014').

4. Brief facts of the case are that
father/husband of the respective petitioners,
as the case may be, died-in-harness in
respective years given in paragraph 6
which is reproduced hereinunder:

"That the father/husband of the
petitioners died-in-harness on dates like
17.07.2013,
07.12.2013,
19.04.2009,
28.05.2012,

21.06.2008,
03.07.2003,
03.02.2011,
28.03.2013,
12.10.2010,
12.05.2011,
22.05.2009,
11.08.2012,
10.01.2009, 10.10.2010 and 27.06.2006 in
so far as it relates to petitioner No.1 to
petitioner No.15."

5. Since they were the sole breadearner, their respective families suddenly
landed in a huge financial crisis and, hence,
there arose a need for compassionate
appointment to be claimed by their
respective
dependants.
In
the
circumstances,
they
all
applied
for
compassionate appointment before the
respondent-Establishment as per the Uttar
Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of
Government Servants Dying-in-Harness
Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the
'Rules, 1974') against suitable posts and by
the time their applications could have been
accorded
consideration,
the
State
Government framed new rules namely the
Uttar Pradesh Police Ministerial, Accounts
and Confidential Assistant Cadres Service
Rules, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as 'the
Rules, 2015) vide its Gazette Notification
dated 23.07.2015, wherein Rule 10(3)
provided appointment against the post of
Sub-Inspector (Confidential), a minimum
eligibility criteria for dying-in-harness
494 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
purposes was 'Speed of 25 words per
minute in Hindi Typing' and '80 words per
minute in Shorthand' and a candidate who
applies for appointment, should also
possess 'O' Level Computer Certificate'
issued by DOEACC/ NIELIT.

6. It further transpires that Rules, 2015
were made applicable by the respondents,
but it did not force for necessary
requirements
of
'O
Level
Computer
Certificate' issued by DOEACC/ NIELIT.
The petitioners upon coming to know that
their candidature for the purposes of
compassionate appointment were being
subjected to the procedure prescribed under
Rules, 2015 coupled with the eligibility
criteria prescribed therein, they rushed to
this Court by filing a writ petition being
Writ-A No.5039 of 2016 (Ajeet Kumar and
7 others Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others) and
Writ-A No.9045 of 2016 (Jitendra Kumar
Yadav and 6 others Vs. State of U.P. and 2
others), which were allowed finally with a
direction to the authorities to accord due
consideration to the candidature of the
petitioners for compassionate appointment
in terms of old rules.

7. The said co-ordinate Bench of this
Court in Writ-A No.5039 of 2016 has set
aside the order dated 13.01.2016, by which
the respondents held the petitioners 'not to
be eligible' as per Rules, 2015. Relevant
paragraph
22
thereof
is
reproduced
hereinunder:

"22. Having regard to the facts
and circumstances of the case, the orders
issued by the respondents which are under
challenge in the writ petition, are liable to
be set aside. Accordingly, the impugned
orders
dated
13.1.2016,
collectively
annexed as annexure-5 to the writ petition,
issued to each petitioner, are set aside. The
petitioners are entitled to be considered
under the old scheme."

8. It further transpires, as is also
admitted by the learned counsel for the
petitioners, that all the petitioners, except
petitioner nos.6, 14 and 15, were party to
the aforesaid petitions. However, the
respondents continued to test the eligibility
of the petitioners as per Rules, 2015 and
finally rejected their candidature being
'unsuccessful' in the test of 'Stenography'.

9. Learned Advocate appearing for the
petitioners has placed two fold arguments.
First, Rules, 2015 were not applicable in
the case of the petitioners as the cause of
action for compassionate appointment
arose prior to Rules, 2015 on account of
death of the sole bread-earner of the
respective petitioners in the relevant years
prior to Rules, 2015, and all dependents
being major had moved an application for
consideration
of
compassionate
appointment prior to Rules, 2015 when
Rules, 2014 were applicable. In support of
his arguments, he has placed reliance upon
the authorities of this Court in the case of
Dharamveer Singh and another Vs. State
of U.P. and 5 others (Writ-A No.15345 of
2023), where due consideration to the claim
of
the
petitioners
for
compassionate
appointment, was directed to be accorded
under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of
Dependants
of
Government
Servants
Dying-in-Harness
(11th
Amendment)
Rules, 2014 in the Police Department. He
has also placed reliance upon judgment of
the Supreme Court in the case of State of
Madhya Pradesh & others Vs. Ashish
Awasthi in Civil Appeal No.6903 of 2021
along with connected appeal being Civil
Appeal No.6904 of 2021, State of Madhya
Pradesh & others Vs. Baalendu Yadav,
reported in LL 2021 SC 659 disposed of on
7 All. Deepak Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors..
495
18.11.2021. He has also placed paragraph
4.1, 4.2 and 5 of that judgment before the
Court and the same are reproduced
hereinbelow:

"4.1 In the case of Indian Bank
and Ors. Vs. Promila and Anr., (2020) 2
SCC 729, it is observed and held that claim
for compassionate appointment must be
decided only on the basis of relevant
scheme prevalent on date of demise of the
employee and subsequent scheme cannot be
looked into. Similar view has been taken by
this Court in the case of State of Madhya
Pradesh and Ors. Vs. Amit Shrivas, (2020)
10 SCC 496. It is required to be noted that
in the case of Amit Shrivas (supra) the
very scheme applicable in the present case
was under consideration and it was held
that the scheme prevalent on the date of
death of the deceased employee is only to
be considered. In that view of the matter,
the impugned judgment and order passed
by the Division Bench is unsustainable and
deserves to be quashed and set aside.

4.2 The submission on behalf of
the respondent that after the impugned
judgment and order passed by the High
Court, the respondent has been appointed
and therefore his appointment may not be
disturbed, deserves rejection. Once the
judgment and order passed by the Division
bench under which respondent is appointed
is quashed and set aside, necessary
consequences
shall
follow
and
the
appointment of the respondent, which was
pursuant to the impugned judgment and
order passed by the Division Bench of the
High Court cannot be protected.

5. In view of the above and for
the reasons stated above, the present
appeal succeeds, the impugned judgment
and order passed by the Division Bench of
the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench
at Jabalpur in WA No.1559 of 2018 is
hereby quashed and set aside by observing
that the respondent shall not be entitled for
appointment on compassionate ground on
the basis of the subsequent circular/policy
dated 31.08.2016."

10. Thus, the argument is that the
respondents may be commanded by issuing
writ of mandamus to offer compassionate
appointment to the petitioners as per dyingin-harness Rules, 2014 on suitable posts.

11. Per contra, learned Additional
Chief Standing Counsel has sought to
defend the stand of the respondents on the
ground that once the petitioners subjected
themselves to the Rules, 2015 and appeared
in the test of 'Typing' as well as
'Stenography',
now
they
cannot
be
permitted to take 'U-turn' to suggest that
their candidature ought to have been
considered under the old rules. In support
of his argument, he has placed emphasis on
an extract of paragraph six of the counter
affidavit
and
same
is
reproduced
hereinunder:

"The claim of the petitioners for
providing equality of the candidates who
participated
in
the
examination
on
8.8.2021, is not sustainable in the eyes of
law. It is relevant to mention here that
separate notifications were issued for both
the examinations. The petitioners were fully
aware
about
the
notification
dated
27.6.2019 and after full satisfaction they
have participated in the examination on
8.7.2019. It is submitted that since the
selection was made separately, therefore,
no
question
arises
for
giving
any
equality/parity to the petitioners as per
relevant rules. The instant amendment
application
filed
on
behalf
of
the
496 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
petitioners, is absolutely misconceived and
nothing new fact has been brought by
means of present amendment application,
as such instant amendment application is
liable
to
be
rejected
outrightly
by
dismissing the writ petition in view of facts
stated
in
this
counter
affidavit
of
amendment application as well as main
counter affidavit of writ petition."

12. It is sought to be urged by learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel that
even under the dying-in-harness Rules,
2014 qualifying test was the 'Typing' and
the petitioners having failed in 'Typingcum-Stenography Test', now may not be
permitted to take a plea that their
candidature for compassionate appointment
may be accorded due consideration against
the post in question.

13. Having heard learned counsel for
the respective parties and having perused
the records, I find only one question to be
requiring determination by this Court and
is, whether the petitioners' candidature
should have been considered under the
dying-in-harness
Rules,
2014
or
the
respondents were justified in holding
'Typing-cum-Stenography
Test
of
the
petitioners under the Rules, 2015.

14. It is admitted to the learned
counsel for both the parties that the sole
earning
members
of
the
respective
petitioners had died between the period
2006 and 2013 when the dying-in-harness
Rules, 2014 were very much in existence
and were also applicable to the Police
Department as well. It is also not disputed
by the respective parties especially the
State-respondents that all the petitioners as
dependents of the deceased-employees had
applied for compassionate appointment
prior to coming into force of Rules, 2015.

15. In the circumstances, the natural
inference to be drawn is that on the date
applications were filed for the purposes of
enforcement of relevant rights vested under
the service rules existing on that date,
admittedly, Dying-in-Harness Rules, 2014
was then in existence and hence the
respondents were to abide by the said law
while considering the candidature of
petitioners for compassionate appointment.
The rule of compassionate appointment is
an exception to the general rule of
appointment and the object behind it is to
provide immediate succour to the bereaved
family which has landed in a sudden
financial crisis on account of death of the
sole bread-earner of the family in harness.
In the case of State of West Bengal vs.
Debabrata Tiwari and others (2025) 5
SCC 712, the Supreme Court has discussed
the policy of compassionate appointment.
Vide paragraph 23 to 31, it has held thus:

"23. The majesty of death is that
it is a great leveller for, it makes no
distinction between the young and the old
or the rich and the poor. Death being as a
consequence of birth at some point of time
is inevitable for every being. Thus, while
death is certain, its timing is uncertain.
Further, a deceased employee does not
always leave behind valuable assets; he
may at times leave behind poverty to be
faced by the immediate members of his
family. Therefore, what should be done to
ensure that death of an individual does not
mean economic death for his family? The
State's obligation in this regard, confined
to its employees who die in harness, has
given rise to schemes and rules providing
for compassionate appointment of an
eligible member of his family as an
instance of providing immediate succour to
such a family. Support for such a provision
has been derived from the provisions of
7 All. Deepak Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors..
497
Part IV of the Constitution of India, i.e.,
Article 39 of the Directive Principles of
State Policy.

24. It may be apposite to refer to
the following decisions of this Court, on the
rationale behind a policy or scheme for
compassionate
appointment
and
the
considerations
that
ought
to
guide
determination of claims for compassionate
appointment.

25. In Sushma Gosain vs. Union
of India, (1989) 4 SCC 468, this Court
observed that in all claims for appointment
on compassionate grounds, there should
not be any delay in appointment. That the
purpose of providing appointment on
compassionate grounds is to mitigate the
hardship caused due to the death of the
bread
earner
in
the
family.
Such
appointment should, therefore, be provided
immediately to redeem the family in
distress.

26. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs.
State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138, this
Court observed that the object of granting
compassionate employment is to enable the
family of a deceased government employee
to tide over the sudden crisis by providing
gainful
employment
to
one
of
the
dependants of the deceased who is eligible
for such employment. That mere death of
an employee in harness does not entitle his
family to such source of livelihood; the
Government
or
the
public
authority
concerned has to examine the financial
condition of the family of the deceased and
it is only if it is satisfied that, but for the
provision of employment, the family will
not be able to meet the crisis, that a job is
to be offered to the eligible member of the
family, provided a scheme or rules provide
for the same. This Court further clarified in
the
said
case
that
compassionate
appointment is not a vested right which can
be exercised at any time after the death of a
government servant. That the object being
to enable the family to get over the
financial crisis which it faces at the time of
the death of the sole breadwinner,
compassionate
employment
cannot
be
claimed
and
offered
after
lapse
of
considerable amount of time and after the
crisis is overcome.

27. In Haryana State Electricity
Board vs. Hakim Singh, (1997) 8 SCC 85,
("Hakim Singh") this Court placed much
emphasis on the need for immediacy in the
manner in which claims for compassionate
appointment are made by the dependants
and decided by the concerned authority.
This Court cautioned that it should not be
forgotten that the object of compassionate
appointment is to give succour to the family
to tide over the sudden financial crisis that
has befallen the dependants on account of
the untimely demise of its sole earning
member. Therefore, this Court held that it
would
not
be
justified
in
directing
appointment for the claimants therein on
compassionate grounds, fourteen years
after the death of the government employee.
That such a direction would amount to
treating
a
claim
for
compassionate
appointment as though it were a matter of
inheritance based on a line of succession.

28. This Court in State of
Haryana vs. Ankur Gupta, AIR 2003 SC
3797 held that in order for a claim for
compassionate
appointment
to
be
considered reasonable and permissible, it
must be shown that a sudden crisis
occurred in the family of the deceased as a
result of death of an employee who had
served the State and died while in service.
It was further observed that appointment
498 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
on compassionate grounds cannot be
claimed as a matter of right and cannot be
made available to all types of posts
irrespective of the nature of service
rendered by the deceased employee.

29. There is a consistent line of
authority of this Court on the principle that
appointment on compassionate grounds is
given only for meeting the immediate
unexpected hardship which is faced by the
family by reason of the death of the bread
earner vide Jagdish Prasad vs. State of
Bihar, (1996) 1 SCC 301. When an
appointment is made on compassionate
grounds, it should be kept confined only to
the purpose it seeks to achieve, the idea
being
not
to
provide
for
endless
compassion,
vide
I.G.
(Karmik)
vs.
Prahalad Mani Tripathi, (2007) 6 SCC
162. In the same vein is the decision of this
Court in Mumtaz Yunus Mulani vs. State of
Maharashtra, (2008) 11 SCC 384, wherein
it was declared that 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.

30. In State of Jammu and
Kashmir vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir, AIR 2006
SC 2743, the facts before this Court were
that the government employee (father of the
applicant therein) died in March, 1987.
The application was made by the applicant
after four and half years in September,
1991 which was rejected in March, 1996.
The writ petition was filed in June, 1999
which was dismissed by the learned Single
Judge in July, 2000. When the Division
Bench decided the matter, more than fifteen
years had passed from the date of death of
the father of the applicant. This Court
remarked that the said facts were relevant
and material as they would demonstrate
that the family survived in spite of death of
the employee. Therefore, this Court held
that granting compassionate appointment
after a lapse of a considerable amount of
time after the death of the government
employee, would not be in furtherance of
the object of a scheme for compassionate
appointment.

31. In Shashi Kumar, this Court
speaking through Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.
(as His Lordship then was) observed that
compassionate appointment is an exception
to the general rule that appointment to any
public post in the service of the State has to
be made on the basis of principles which
accord with Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution. That the basis of the policy is
that it recognizes that a family of a
deceased employee may be placed in a
position of financial hardship upon the
untimely death of the employee while in
service. That it is the immediacy of the need
which furnishes the basis for the State to
allow
the
benefit
of
compassionate
appointment. The pertinent observations of
this Court have been extracted as under:

"35. Insofar as the individual
facts pertaining to the Respondent are
concerned, it has emerged from the record
that the Writ Petition before the High Court
was instituted on 11 May 2015. The
application for compassionate appointment
was submitted on 8 May 2007. On 15
January 2008 the Additional Secretary had
required that the amount realized by way of
pension
be
included
in
the
income
statement of the family. The Respondent
waited thereafter for a period in excess of
seven years to move a petition Under
Article 226 of the Constitution. In Umesh
Kumar Nagpal (supra), this Court has
emphasized that the basis of a scheme of
compassionate appointment lies in the need
7 All. Deepak Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors..
499
of providing immediate assistance to the
family of the deceased employee. This sense
of immediacy is evidently lost by the delay
on the part of the dependant in seeking
compassionate appointment."

16. Keeping this object in mind, any
prudent man would come to conclude that
the moment an application is moved by the
dependent
of
the
deceased-employee
seeking compassionate appointment, it
should have be considered within a
reasonable time because the delay would
defeat the very object for which the rules
have been framed. This aspect has been
considered by the Supreme Court in the
case of State of H.P. vs. Shashi Kumar,
(2019) 3 SCC 653. Vide paragraph 35 the
Court has held thus:

"35. Insofar as the individual
facts pertaining to the Respondent are
concerned, it has emerged from the record
that the Writ Petition before the High Court
was instituted on 11 May 2015. The
application for compassionate appointment
was submitted on 8 May 2007. On 15
January 2008 the Additional Secretary had
required that the amount realized by way of
pension
be
included
in
the
income
statement of the family. The Respondent
waited thereafter for a period in excess of
seven years to move a petition Under
Article 226 of the Constitution. In Umesh
Kumar Nagpal (supra), this Court has
emphasized that the basis of a scheme of
compassionate appointment lies in the need
of providing immediate assistance to the
family of the deceased employee. This sense
of immediacy is evidently lost by the delay
on the part of the dependant in seeking
compassionate appointment."

17. Relying upon the same, the
Supreme Court in the case of Debabrata
Tiwari
(supra)
vide
paragraph
32.4
observed thus:

"That
compassionate
appointment
should
be
provided
immediately to redeem the family in
distress. It is improper to keep such a case
pending for years."

18. Further, in the case of Malaya
Nanda Sethy vs. State of Orissa and
others, 2022 SCC Online SC 684, the
Court vide paragraph 16 has held thus:

"Before parting with the present
order, we are constrained to observe that
considering the object and purpose of
appointment on compassionate grounds,
i.e., a family of a deceased employee may
be placed in a position of financial
hardship upon the untimely death of the
employee while in service and the basis or
policy is immediacy in rendering of
financial assistance to the family of the
deceased consequent upon his untimely
death, the authorities must consider and
decide such applications for appointment
on compassionate grounds as per the
policy prevalent, at the earliest, but not
beyond a period of six months from the
date of submission of such completed
applications."

(emphasis supplied)

19. In this above view of the matter,
the respondents were required to consider
the application of the petitioners for
compassionate
appointment
within
a
reasonable
period
the
moment
they
received their applications. But, it appears
that the respondents waited and lingered on
the matter until Rules, 2015 came into
force. It is thereafter, they proceeded to
500 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
consider the candidature of the petitioners.
Being aggrieved by the approach of the
respondents to consider the claims vide
new Rules, 2015, petitioners had rushed to
this Court by filing petitions before this
Court, except petitioner nos.6, 14 and 15,
seeking a relief that their candidature may
be considered under the dying-in-harness
Rules, 2014 and not under the Rules, 2015.
This Court issued a positive direction in
this regard, which has already been
reproduced hereinabove. However, the
respondents continued to stick to their own
stand that Rules, 2015 would be applicable
and subjected the petitioners to undergo
'Typing-cum-Stenography Test'. Paragraph
6 of the counter affidavit, which is a reply
to paragraph 10 of the writ petition, does
not in any manner dispute the mandate
contained in the directions of this Court
passed in the aforesaid writ petition, which
have
been
reproduced
hereinabove,
wherein the respondents were directed to
follow Rules, 2014.

20. The defence taken subsequently in
the counter affidavit is that even the old
rules required 'Typing Test'. It is also
apparent from the records that all the
petitioners qualified the 'Typing Test', but
failed in the 'Stenography Test'. If this
object as has been raised in the counter
affidavit, is taken into consideration, then
even as per the old rules all the petitioners
deserve to be appointed.

21. In the circumstances, therefore, the
judgment passed by this Court Court in the
case of Dharamveer Singh (supra) is fully
attracted in the case of the petitioners,
wherein it has been categorically held that
the rules as was in force on the date of
cause of action would be applicable. In
paragraphs 11 and 12 of that judgment, the
Court has held thus:

"11. Vide paragraph 61 of the
judgment the Division Bench in the case of
State of U.P. and others v. Himanshu
Yadav (Special Appeal No.126 of 2023)
finally held thus:

"61.
Lastly,
considering
the
submission of the learned Additional
Advocate General for the appellants based
on the decision of the Apex court in State of
Uttar Pradesh and others vs. Premlata
reported in (2022) 1 SCC 30 that the offer
given to the respondent/writ petitioner for
appointment on compassionate ground on a
lower post was sufficient compliance of the
scheme requiring appointment to the
dependents of the deceased, suffice it to
note that such an offer ignoring the fact
that the appellants do not adhere to the
requirement of the rules by filling up
vacancies year-wise, cannot be said to be
in the spirit of law. No one can be granted
benefit of their own wrong. By first
accumulating
the
applications
for
compassionate appointment over the period
of four years and then excluding the
candidates from the zone of consideration
by holding an objective test after a period
of four years from the date of the
promulgation of the Rules providing for
restriction to 5% limit to the number of
vacancies to be filled up by direct
recruitment, the appellants have committed
a mistake benefit of which cannot be
granted to them. "

12. Besides above, in recent
judgment of the Division Bench in the case
of Oriented Insurance Company Ltd. v.
Priyanka Agarwal (Special Appeal No.309
of 2019), decided on 04.08.2023, the Court
followed the judgment of the Special
Appellate Bench in the case of State of
U.P. and others v. Himanshu Yadav
(Special Appeal No.126 of 2023), delivered
7 All. Ramesh Chandra Gupta Vs. State of U.P. & Ors..
501
on 07.07.2023. The Court further observed
that merely because a matter has been
referred to a larger Bench in State Bank of
India v. Sheo Shankar Tewari (2019) 5
SCC 600, the legal position as stands today
cannot be made unsettled but the law exists
shall have to be followed. Vide paragraph
23 the Court held thus:

"23. We are also aware that the
reference made to Larger Bench of the
Supreme Court in State Bank of India Vs.
Sheo Shankar Tewari is still pending before
that Court. However, in view of the
discussion made above as to the law laid
down by the Supreme Court, since the
occurrence of that reference vide order
dated 08.02.2012 we do not find any doubt
exists as to the law to be applied in matters
of compassionate appointments, in the
meanwhile. For that reason as well, since
on the date of occurrence of death of Sri
Surendra Kumar Agrawal, on 06.9.2014,
there did not exist any scheme for grant of
compassionate appointment, the claim
made by the petitioner would fail."

22. The Supreme Court judgments in
the cases of Dharamveer Singh (supra)
and Ashish Awasthi (supra) which have
been relied upon by learned counsel for the
petitioners, which have been reproduced
hereinabove, also provides that the scheme
that was prevalent on the date of death of
an
employee
should
be
taken
into
consideration
for
the
purposes
of
compassionate appointment.

23. In such above view of the matter,
the respondents are held 'not justified' in
rejecting the claim of the respective
petitioners for compassionate appointment
on the ground that they could not succeed
in the 'Stenography Test' pursuant to the
Rules, 2015.

24. Accordingly, the respondents are
directed to reconsider the applications of
the respective petitioners as per the dyingin-harness Rules, 2014. In the considered
view of the Court, this time a positive
consideration must be accorded more
especially when the petitioners have
succeeded in the 'Typing Test' as per own
stand of the respondents and they shall be
offered appointment.

25. I must add here that delay for long
consideration of claims by respondents and
the pendency of the matter before this
Court since 2015 would not invite clause of
5 years' bar so as to seek further approval
of State Government. The said clause shall
not be attracted in the present case.

26.
Appropriate
orders
for
compassionate appointment, accordingly,
shall be passed to all the respective
petitioners within a maximum period of
one month from the date of production of a
certified copy of this order, if there is no
legal impediment.

27. The writ petition succeeds and is,
accordingly, allowed as above.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 501
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.07.2025
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ A No. 21629 of 2011

Ramesh Chandra Gupta ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Chhaya Gupta, Rajiv Joshi