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

- **Citation:** (2025) 12 ILRA 284
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-12-10
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 17776 of 2025
- **Bench:** Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/deepak-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52835
- **Pages:** 5

## Text

284 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
format is an administrative direction, is not
admissible as the format prescribed in the
impugned circular is in consonance with
Rule-4(2) of the Rules, 1978 as amended in
the year 2019, which stipulates minimum
qualification for the post of Head Master in
a recognized school i.e. five years teaching
experience which ought to be construed as
full time teaching experience, though the
petitioners are discharging their duties as
part-time instructors. Thus, the petitioners
do not fulfill the required qualification in
view of the provisions of the Rules, 1978,
hence, the challenge of the petitioners in
the writ petition is unsustainable.

49.
Even
otherwise,
under
the
notification / Government order dated
19.02.2021, applications were invited only
from those candidates who possessed a
minimum
of
five
years'
teaching
experience as an Assistant Teacher, such
experience being a mandatory and essential
qualification
for
consideration
for
appointment on the post of Headmaster.
Thus, the rule of the game has not been
changed in the midst of the selection
proceedings.

50. Accordingly, a candidate who
relies solely on five years' experience as a
part-time instructor cannot be held eligible
for appointment to the post of Headmaster
under the Rules, 1978 as amended in 2019.

51. Experience acquired as a part-time
instructor is not equivalent to regular
teaching experience under the Rules, 1978
and cannot be counted towards the requisite
five
years
teaching
experience
for
appointment to the post of Headmaster. The
experience gained on part-time basis cannot
ordinarily be equated with regular service
experience unless the rules expressly
permit such equivalence. The post, status,
and duties attached to the experience are
required to be considered.

52. In view of the foregoing discussion
and the settled position of law, this Court
holds
that
the
expression
'teaching
experience' occurring in Rule 4 of the
Rules of 1978, as amended in 2019,
unequivocally refers to experience acquired
while serving as a duly appointed teacher in
a recognized Junior High School of Senior
Basic School, forming part of the regular
teaching cadre. Experience gained in any
other capacity, including as a part-time
instructor does not satisfy the statutory
requirement prescribed under the rules and
cannot be taken into consideration for
appointment to the post of Headmaster.

53. Accordingly, the action of the
respondents in rejecting the claim of the
petitioners for appointment to the post of
Headmaster, on the ground of lack of
requisite teaching experience as mandated
under Rule 4 of the Rules of 1978, as
amended, calls for no interference by this
Court.

54. The writ petition, being devoid of
merit, is dismissed. There shall be no order
as to costs.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 284
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.12.2025

BEFORE

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

Writ A No. 17776 of 2025

Deepak Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
12 All. Deepak Kumar Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
285
Issue for consideration
Whether petitioner's claim for compassionate
appointment should have been considered by
the respondent?

Headnotes
A.
Service
Law
-
The
scheme
of
compassionate appointment is to provide
immediate relief and cannot be applied in a
manner defeating its humanitarian purpose.
Authority should consider the claim in light of
subsequent eligibility and should not freeze
the assessment at the date of death of the
employee. Where economic hardship persists,
compassionate appointment cannot be denied
on technical grounds. (Para 9 to 11)

In the present case, the petitioner's father died
in harness in the year 2023. Although the
petitioner's mother was employed as a Safai
Karamchari at the time of the employee's death,
it is undisputed that she subsequently tendered
her resignation, leaving the family without any
assured
source
of
livelihood.
In
such
circumstances, the rejection of the petitioner's
claim for compassionate appointment on the
sole ground that the mother was employed at
the time of the demise is wholly unsustainable
and contrary to the settled principles governing
compassionate appointment. (Para 12 to 14, 16)

If the order impugned would have been passed,
considering the petitioner's application, prior to
resignation of the petitioner's mother, the case
would have been different but consideration of
the application after resignation of petitioner's
mother, places it in distinct situation, wherein
the
petitioner's
claim
for
compassionate
appointment ought to have been considered.
(Para 15)

The mere fact that one dependent was
employed
is
not
conclusive,
and
compassionate appointment cannot be
denied if the employment was insufficient
to alleviate the financial crisis or if the
circumstances
have
subsequently
changed. (Para 17)

The matter is remitted to respondent no. 3 to
reconsider
the
claim
of
compassionate
appointment of the petitioner.
Writ petition allowed. (E-4)
Case Law Cited
1. Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana
and others, (1994) 4 SCC 138 (Para 8)
2. Canara Bank and another Vs. M. Mahesh
Kumar, (2015) 7 SCC 412 (Para 8)
3. Balbir Kaur and another Vs. Steel Authority of
India Ltd. and others, (2000) 6 SCC 493 (Para 9)
4. Syed Khadim Hussain Vs. State of Bihar and
others, (2006) 9 SCC 195 (Para 10)
5. Kusum Devi (Smt.) Vs. State of U.P. and
others, (2001) 3 UPLBEC 2431 (Para 11)
6. Rekha Joshi Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors.,
MANU/RH/0079/2018 (Para 11)

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

List of Keywords
 service,
compassionate,
appointment,
resignation.

Appearances for Parties
For
Petitioner(s):
Sameer
Srivastava,
Shivanshu Mehta
For Respondent(s): C.S.C.

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

1. Present writ petition has been filed
challenging an order dated 26.07.2025
passed by respondent no. 31, vide which
claim of the petitioner for compassionate
appointment has been rejected.

2. Placing brief facts of the case,
learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner's father was working as a
Safai Karamchari in Nagar Palika Parishad,
Farrukhabad since 1991. He died-inharness on 20.05.2023, leaving behind his
wife i.e. the petitioner's mother and one
son i.e. the petitioner, as his legal heirs.
The petitioner moved an application for his
appointment on compassionate ground, on
11.07.2023. As the petitioner's father was
suffering from a chronic ailment, therefore,
286 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
his mother who was also working as Safari
Karmchari in Gram Panchayat Dilawarpur,
had to take leave to take care of her
husband. After demise of her husband,
when the petitioner's mother re-joined her
services, she was pestered and harassed for
her alleged unauthorized absence and was
compelled to tender her resignation, which
was accepted on 31.05.2025. The matter
regarding compassionate appointment of
the petitioner was still pending, therefore,
he moved an application before the
respondent
authority
on
31.05.2024
mentioning about the financial crisis that
arose due to resignation of his mother,
however, without considering the said
circumstances, the claim of the petitioner
for compassionate appointment has been
rejected by respondent no. 3 in an arbitrary
manner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
contends that the object and purpose of
compassionate appointment is to provide
assistance to the bereaved family of the
deceased employee, who has suffered a
shock and is facing financial crisis due to
sudden demise of the sole bread earner. In
numerous cases, the Courts have interfered
with for creation of posts to meet out the
financial crisis of such families and to
consider the claim for compassionate
appointment. He further submits that the
application dated 11.07.2023 was not
considered at the relevant point of time and
it is after the resignation of petitioner's
mother on 31.05.2025, the claim which was
pending consideration, was rejected only
on the ground that the petitioner's mother
was a Government Servant, and without
considering the current situation/ status of
the family pertaining to the financial status
and the crisis which they are suffering.
Thus,
the
impugned
order
is
bad,
unreasonable and unjustifiable in the eyes
of law.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the
respondents could not dispute the aforesaid
facts.

5. I have heard Sri Sameer Srivastava,
learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms.
Anuradha Sundaram, learned Additional
Chief Standing Counsel for respondent nos.
1 & 2, Sri Atul Kumar Tiwari, learned
counsel appearing for respondent no. 3 and
perused the record.

6. In the present case, the petitioner's
father passed away while in service in the
year 2023. The petitioner moved an
application for compassionate appointment
on 11.07.2023. Although the petitioner's
mother
was
employed
as
a
Safai
Karamchari at the time of the death of the
petitioner's
father,
she
subsequently
tendered her resignation on 31.05.2023.
However, the impugned order has been
passed sans considering the changed
circumstances which were prevailing at the
time of consideration by the authority.

7. The principal argument advanced
by learned counsel for the petitioner is that
once petitioner's mother resigned and the
family was left without any source of
subsistence, the relevant consideration is
the financial condition of the family at the
time of examination of the application, and
not merely the employment status of the
dependent at the time of death. This hypertechnical view denying relief would defeat
the very object of the compassionate
appointment scheme under the Uttar
Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of
Government Servants Dying in Harness
Rules, 19742, which aims to provide
12 All. Deepak Kumar Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
287
immediate financial support to the bereaved
family to prevent destitution.

8. The Supreme Court in the case of
Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of
Haryana and others3, has categorically
held that the object of compassionate
appointment is to provide immediate
succour to the bereaved family to save it
from financial destitution. The test to be
applied is the financial condition of the
family,
and
not
hyper-technical
considerations. Similarly, in Canara Bank
and another v. M. Mahesh Kumar4, the
Court reiterated that the scheme must be
interpreted in a manner that advances its
purpose
and
mitigates
the
financial
hardship of the dependents.

9. The Apex Court in the case of
Balbir Kaur and another v. Steel
Authority of India Ltd. and others5, has
reiterated that the scheme of compassionate
appointment is to provide immediate relief
and cannot be applied in a manner
defeating its humanitarian purpose.

10.
Considering
the
changed
circumstances in between the period from
the date of death of the employee and the
date of consideration for compassionate
appointment, the Supreme Court in the case
of Syed Khadim Hussain v. State of
Bihar and others6, has observed that
authority should consider the claim in light
of subsequent eligibility and should not
freeze the assessment at the date of death of
the employee.

11. This Court in the case of Kusum
Devi (Smt.) v. State of U.P. and others7
and the Rajasthan High Court in the case of
Rekha Joshi v. State of Rajasthan and
Ors.8 have also held that where economic
hardship
persists,
compassionate
appointment cannot be denied on technical
grounds.

12. In the present case, the petitioner's
father died in harness in the year 2023.
Although the petitioner's mother was
employed as a Safai Karamchari at the time
of the employee's death, it is undisputed
that
she
subsequently
tendered
her
resignation, leaving the family without any
assured source of livelihood. In such
circumstances,
the
rejection
of
the
petitioner's
claim
for
compassionate
appointment on the sole ground that the
mother was employed at the time of the
demise
is
wholly
unsustainable
and
contrary to the settled principles governing
compassionate appointment.

13. The conditions prescribed for grant
of compassionate appointment are required
to be examined with reference to the
circumstances prevailing on the date on
which the competent authority considers
the application, also, and not solely with
reference to the situation prevailing on the
date of death of the deceased employee.
The underlying object of the scheme of
compassionate appointment is to provide
immediate succour to the bereaved family
facing financial destitution owing to the
untimely demise of the breadwinner.
Therefore, where the eligibility conditions
undergo a change prior to the consideration
of the application, or where subsequent
events materially alter the financial status
of the family, the same must duly be taken
into account. A mechanical or hypertechnical reliance on facts existing at the
time of death alone would defeat the very
object of the scheme.

14. In the present case, once the
petitioner's mother, who was employed as
a
Safai
Karamchari,
tendered
her
288 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
resignation during the pendency of the
petitioner's application, the competent
authority was obliged to assess the claim
afresh in light of the changed financial
condition. The rejection of the petitioner's
application solely on the ground that the
mother was employed on the date of death
of the deceased employee is therefore
legally unsustainable, being contrary to the
benevolent purpose of the scheme as well
as
the
settled
principles
governing
compassionate appointment.

15. If the order impugned would have
been passed, considering the petitioner's
application, prior to resignation of the
petitioner's mother, the case would have
been different but consideration of the
application after resignation of petitioner's
mother, places it in distinct situation,
wherein
the
petitioner's
claim
for
compassionate appointment ought to have
been considered.

16. This Court is of the considered
view that the respondent-authority was
required to assess the financial condition of
the petitioner's family existing at the time
of consideration of the pending application
for compassionate appointment. Once the
petitioner's mother had resigned and the
family was left without any meaningful
source of income, denial of the petitioner's
claim on the sole ground that she
(petitioner's mother) was employed at the
time of death of her husband (petitioner's
father) is arbitrary, legally untenable, and
defeats
the
very
object
of
the
compassionate appointment scheme. Thus,
the impugned order is unsustainable.

17. The mere fact that one dependent
was employed is not conclusive, and
compassionate appointment cannot be
denied if the employment was insufficient
to alleviate the financial crisis or if the
circumstances have subsequently changed.

18. In view of the above settled
proposition of law, the object and purpose
of the appointment made under the Rules,
1974, is frustrated by the order impugned
dated 26.07.2025, hence it is set aside. The
matter is remitted to respondent no. 3 to
reconsider the claim of compassionate
appointment of the petitioner, keeping in
mind the observations made in this order
and the fact that at present the petitioner's
mother is no longer in any Government
service. The respondent no. 3 shall pass a
fresh
order,
expeditiously,
preferably
within a period of three weeks from the
date of production of a certified copy of
this order.

19. The writ petition is accordingly
allowed.

20. No order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 288
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 11.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ B No. 940 of 2018

Smt. Madhuri Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
Addl. Collector Judicial Barabanki & Ors.
 ...Respondents

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether, in proceedings relating to proof of a
Will under Sections 63 of the Indian Succession
Act, 1925 and 68 of the Indian Evidence Act,
1872, an application for obtaining expert opinion
regarding the thumb impression/signature of the