# Devendra Pratap Singh v. State Of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 10 ILRA 963
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-10-16
- **Case number:** Writ - A No. 34651 of 2018
- **Bench:** Manish Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/devendra-pratap-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52606
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

Validity of the order rejecting the claim of
compassionate appointment of the 'Unmarried
Brother' on the ground of excluding provision of
Clause 4 of Rule 2 (c) of the Act, 1974.

Headnotes
(A)
Service
law
-
Compassionate
appointment
-
Unmarried brother of
deceased-employee, died in harness -
Entitlement - Deceased was married, but
his wife had pre-deceased him - Effect -
Scope of the term 'Family' felt into
consideration :

Held : From a perusal of the amendment
incorporated in Rule 2 of the Rules of 1974, it
appears
that
subsequently
the
unmarried
dependent brother has also been included in the
term "family" of the deceased employee -
Primary purpose of Rules of 1974 are beneficial
in nature in order to provide succour to family of
the deceased in case the deceased was the sole
bread earner - The exclusion indicated in
Clause 4 of Rule 2 (c) of the Rules of 1974 is in
case the deceased was unmarried. Evidently the
964 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
reasoning for such exclusion would be in terms
of Clause 1 of Rule 2 (c) of Rules of 1974 since
the primary right to claim such compassionate
appointment has been conferred upon the
spouse - Purpose of such exclusion obviously is
to protect the rights of the spouse - Said
purpose of inclusion of clause 4 to Rule 2 (c) of
Rules 1974 would not be applicable in those
cases where the wife of deceased has predeceased him since no purpose would be served
for such exclusion where the spouse of
deceased employee himself is unavailable.
[Paras 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11]

(B)
Interpretation
of
statute
-
Constitution of India - Article 14 -
Reasonable
classification
-
Scope
-
Exclusion clause in a statute - Relevance
of it's nexus with the object sought to be
achieved :

Held : With regard to interpretation of statutory
provisions, requirement also is for examining
the object sought to be achieved by such a
provision and the nexus of any exclusion clause
to the object sought to be achieved - Although
Article
14
does
not
prohibit
reasonable
classification but at the same time the said
classification must be founded on an intelligible
differentia and that such differentia must have a
rational nexus to the object sought to be
achieved by such classification - Janardan
Singh's case relied upon. [Para 13] (E-1)

Case Law Cited
K. H. Nazar v. Matthew K Jacob, (2020) 14 SCC
126; Director General, CRPF & Ors. v. Janardan
Singh & Ors., 2018 LAB. I.C. 3302 - referred
to.

List of Acts
U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government
Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 - Rule 2.

List of Keywords
Compassionate appointment; Sole bread earner;
Dependent; Pre-deceased; Unmarried brother;
Family; Wife; Right of spouse; Exclusion; Widest
amplitude; Beneficial legislation; Reasonable
classification; Intelligible differentia; Rational
nexus.

Case Arising From
Impugned order dated 25.05.2016 rejecting
claim of the petitioner for compassionate
appointment.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner : Vijay Pathak, Bhanu
Pratap Mishra
Advs. For the Respondent : C.S.C.

## Text

10 All. Devendra Pratap Singh Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
963
majority. An order to this effect
shall be forthwith issued by the appointing
authority of the petitioner.
 ii) The services rendered by the
petitioner
from
the
said
date
of
regularization till his retirement shall be
computed towards pensionable service and
his pension shall be fixed accordingly."
13. On a pointed query being raised
to the learned Standing Counsel whether it
is a case of concealment, fraud or
misrepresentation
practiced
by
the
petitioner, the answer is in negative, on a
further query being raised to the learned
standing counsel whether there is any other
deficiency in the services of the writ
petitioner, the answer is also negative.

14. Bearing in mind that the writ
petitioner is working since 1991, his
services stood regularized on 26.03.2002
and by virtue of the cancellation of the
regularization order dated 07.05.2003, he
was accorded interim protection by this
Court on 14.07.2003 and he continues to
work till date and there is nothing on record
to show that there is anything adverse, thus,
applying the principles of equity, writ
petition is being decided in the following
terms:

 (a) the order dated 07.05.2003
passed by the Conservator of Forest,
Varanasi Circle, Varanasi cancelling the
regularization of the writ petitioner dated
26.03.2002 on the post of Forester is set
aside.

 (b) The order dated 26.06.2002
regularizing the services of the writ
petitioner is restored.

 (c) The writ petition shall be
admissible to all consequential benefits as
admissible under law.
15. Accordingly, the writ petition
stands disposed of.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 963
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 16.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

Writ - A No. 34651 of 2018

Devendra Pratap Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State Of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Vijay Pathak, Bhanu Pratap Mishra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Issue for Consideration
Validity of the order rejecting the claim of
compassionate appointment of the 'Unmarried
Brother' on the ground of excluding provision of
Clause 4 of Rule 2 (c) of the Act, 1974.

Headnotes
(A)
Service
law
-
Compassionate
appointment
-
Unmarried brother of
deceased-employee, died in harness -
Entitlement - Deceased was married, but
his wife had pre-deceased him - Effect -
Scope of the term 'Family' felt into
consideration :

Held : From a perusal of the amendment
incorporated in Rule 2 of the Rules of 1974, it
appears
that
subsequently
the
unmarried
dependent brother has also been included in the
term "family" of the deceased employee -
Primary purpose of Rules of 1974 are beneficial
in nature in order to provide succour to family of
the deceased in case the deceased was the sole
bread earner - The exclusion indicated in
Clause 4 of Rule 2 (c) of the Rules of 1974 is in
case the deceased was unmarried. Evidently the
964 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
reasoning for such exclusion would be in terms
of Clause 1 of Rule 2 (c) of Rules of 1974 since
the primary right to claim such compassionate
appointment has been conferred upon the
spouse - Purpose of such exclusion obviously is
to protect the rights of the spouse - Said
purpose of inclusion of clause 4 to Rule 2 (c) of
Rules 1974 would not be applicable in those
cases where the wife of deceased has predeceased him since no purpose would be served
for such exclusion where the spouse of
deceased employee himself is unavailable.
[Paras 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11]

(B)
Interpretation
of
statute
-
Constitution of India - Article 14 -
Reasonable
classification
-
Scope
-
Exclusion clause in a statute - Relevance
of it's nexus with the object sought to be
achieved :

Held : With regard to interpretation of statutory
provisions, requirement also is for examining
the object sought to be achieved by such a
provision and the nexus of any exclusion clause
to the object sought to be achieved - Although
Article
14
does
not
prohibit
reasonable
classification but at the same time the said
classification must be founded on an intelligible
differentia and that such differentia must have a
rational nexus to the object sought to be
achieved by such classification - Janardan
Singh's case relied upon. [Para 13] (E-1)

Case Law Cited
K. H. Nazar v. Matthew K Jacob, (2020) 14 SCC
126; Director General, CRPF & Ors. v. Janardan
Singh & Ors., 2018 LAB. I.C. 3302 - referred
to.

List of Acts
U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government
Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 - Rule 2.

List of Keywords
Compassionate appointment; Sole bread earner;
Dependent; Pre-deceased; Unmarried brother;
Family; Wife; Right of spouse; Exclusion; Widest
amplitude; Beneficial legislation; Reasonable
classification; Intelligible differentia; Rational
nexus.

Case Arising From
Impugned order dated 25.05.2016 rejecting
claim of the petitioner for compassionate
appointment.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner : Vijay Pathak, Bhanu
Pratap Mishra
Advs. For the Respondent : C.S.C.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Manish Mathur, J.)

 1.
Heard
learned
counsel
for
petitioner and learned State Counsel for
opposite parties.

2.
Petition
has
been
filed
challenging order dated 25th May 2016
whereby
petitioner's
application
for
compassionate appointment in terms of
U.P.
Recruitment
of
Dependents
of
Government Servants Dying in Harness
Rules, 1974, has been rejected primarily on
the ground that he is not entitled in terms of
Rule 2 of the aforesaid Rules.

3. It has been submitted that
petitioner's elder brother, late Mahendra
Pratap was engaged with opposite parties
and passed away in harness on 9th October
2015. It is submitted that his wife had predeceased him on 12th February 2010 and
since petitioner was dependent upon the
deceased who was the sole bread earner of
the family, petitioner submitted application
for compassionate appointment which was
rejected. Learned counsel has drawn
attention to Rule 2 of the Rules of 1974 as
amended subsequently in 2001 to submit
that unmarried brothers dependent upon the
deceased were clearly included in the term
of "family" under Rule 2 of the Rules of
1974 and therefore opposite parties have
erred in rejecting his claim particularly
since the wife of deceased pre-deceased
him.
10 All. Devendra Pratap Singh Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
965
4. Learned State Counsel has
refuted submissions advanced by learned
counsel for petitioner and has placed
reliance on counter affidavit dated 17th
January 2019 to submit that petitioner
would come within entitlement only in case
the deceased was unmarried. Since in the
present case, it is admitted by petitioner
himself that the deceased was married, he
is clearly debarred from entitlement.

5.
Upon
consideration
of
submissions advanced by learned counsel
for parties and perusal of material on
record, the facts as narrated herein above
are admitted. It is also evident that
petitioner's application for compassionate
appointment has been rejected solely on the
ground that he is not entitled for the same
in terms of Rule 2 of the Rules of 1974
since the deceased was married. The said
Rule is as follows:

 "2. Definitions. [In these rules,
unless the context otherwise requires:

 (a) "Government servant" means
a
Government
servant
employed
in
connection with the affairs of Uttar
Pradesh, who-

 (i)
was
permanent
in
such
employment; or

 (ii) though temporary had been
regularly appointed in such employment;
or
 (iii)
though
not
regularly
appointed,
had
put
in
three
years
continuous service in regular vacancy in
such employment.

 Explanation.
"Regularly
appointed" means appointed in accordance
with
the
procedure
laid
down
for
recruitment to the post or service, as the
case may be :

 (b)
"deceased
Government
servant" means a Government servant who
dies while in service;

 2[(c) "family" shall include the
following
relations
of
the
deceased
Government servant-

 (i) wife or husband;
 (ii) sons/adopted sons;

 (iii) daughters (including adopted
daughters) and widowed daughters-in-law;

 (iv)
unmarried
brothers,
unmarried sisters and widowed mother
dependent on the deceased Government
servant, if the deceased Government
servant was unmarried;

 (v) aforementioned relations of
such missing Government servant who has
been declared as "dead" by the competent
court:

 Provided
that
if
a
person
belonging to any of the above mentioned
relations of the deceased Government
servant is not available or is found to be
physically and mentally unfit and thus
ineligible for employment in Government
serv-ice, then only in such situation the
word "family" shall also include the
grandsons
and
the
unmarried
granddaughters
of
the
deceased
Government servant dependent on him.".]
 (d) 'Head of Office" means Head
of office in which the deceased Government
servant was serving prior to his death. "

6.
From
a
perusal
of
the
amendment incorporated in Rule 2 of the
966 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Rules of 1974, it appears that subsequently
the unmarried dependent brother has also
been included in the term "family" of the
deceased employee with the stipulation that
he would be covered only in case he was
dependent upon the deceased who should
have been unmarried.

7. In the present case, it is evident
and admitted that the deceased was married
but his wife had pre-deceased him in the
year 2010.

8. It is to be kept in mind that the
primary purpose of Rules of 1974 are
beneficial in nature in order to provide
succour to family of the deceased in case
the deceased was the sole bread earner.

9. The exclusion indicated in
Clause 4 of Rule 2 (c) of the Rules of 1974
is in case the deceased was unmarried.
Evidently the reasoning for such exclusion
would be in terms of Clause 1 of Rule 2 (c)
of Rules of 1974 since the primary right to
claim such compassionate appointment has
been conferred upon the spouse. It is for
this reasoning that Clause 4 excludes all
other unmarried members of family of
deceased in case the deceased was married.

10. In the considered opinion of
this court, the purpose of such exclusion
obviously is to protect the rights of the
spouse and to accord primacy to such
spouse of the deceased employee to the
exclusion of other unmarried members of
the family.

11. It is thus evident that the said
purpose of inclusion of clause 4 to Rule 2
(c) of Rules 1974 would not be applicable
in those cases where the wife of deceased
has pre-deceased him since no purpose
would be served for such exclusion where
the spouse of deceased employee himself is
unavailable.

12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of K.H. Nazar versus Matthew K
Jacob (2020) 14 SCC 126 had adjudicated
upon the purpose of beneficial legislation
in the context that widest amplitude and
explanation is required to be given to such
beneficial legislations so that its purpose is
not defeated. The relevant portion of the
aforesaid judgment is as follows:-

 " 11. Provisions of a beneficial
legislation have to be construed with a
purpose-oriented
approach.
[Kerala
Fishermen's Welfare Fund Board v. Fancy
Food, (1995) 4 SCC 341] The Act should
receive a liberal construction to promote
its
objects.
[Bombay Anand
Bhavan
Restaurant v. ESI Corpn., (2009) 9 SCC 61
: (2009) 2 SCC (L&S) 573 and Union of
India v. Prabhakaran Vijaya Kumar,
(2008) 9 SCC 527 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri)
813] Also, literal construction of the
provisions of a beneficial legislation has to
be avoided. It is the court's duty to discern
the intention of the legislature in making
the law. Once such an intention is
ascertained, the statute should receive a
purposeful or functional interpretation
[Bharat Singh v. New Delhi Tuberculosis
Centre, (1986) 2 SCC 614 : 1986 SCC
(L&S) 335] .

 12. In the words of O. Chinnappa
Reddy, J. [Workmen v. American Express
International Banking Corpn., (1985) 4
SCC 71 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 940] , the
principles of statutory construction of
beneficial legislation are as follows:
(Workmen case [Workmen v. American
Express International Banking Corpn.,
(1985) 4 SCC 71 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 940] ,
SCC p. 76, para 4)
10 All. Devendra Pratap Singh Vs. State Of U.P. & Ors.
967
 "4. The principles of statutory
construction are well settled. Words
occurring in statutes of liberal import such
as 'social welfare legislation and human
rights' legislation are not to be put in
Procrustean beds or shrunk to Lilliputian
dimensions. In construing these legislations
the imposture of literal construction must
be avoided and the prodigality of its
misapplication must be recognised and
reduced.
Judges
ought
to
be
more
concerned with the "colour", the "content"
and the "context" of such statutes (we have
borrowed
the
words
from
Lord
Wilberforce's
opinion
in
Prenn
v.
Simmonds [Prenn v. Simmonds, (1971) 1
WLR 1381 : (1971) 3 All ER 237 (HL)] ).
In the same opinion Lord Wilberforce
pointed out that law is not to be left behind
in some island of literal interpretation but
is to enquire beyond the language,
unisolated from the matrix of facts in which
they are set; the law is not to be interpreted
purely on internal linguistic considerations.
In one of the cases cited before us, that is,
Surendra Kumar Verma v. Central Govt.
Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court
[Surendra Kumar Verma v. Central Govt.
Industrial
Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court,
(1980) 4 SCC 443 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 16] ,
we had occasion to say: (Surendra Kumar
Verma case [Surendra Kumar Verma v.
Central Govt. Industrial Tribunal-cumLabour Court, (1980) 4 SCC 443 : 1981
SCC (L&S) 16] , SCC p. 447, para 6)
 '6. ? Semantic luxuries are
misplaced in the interpretation of "bread
and butter" statutes. Welfare statutes must,
of necessity, receive a broad interpretation.
Where legislation is designed to give relief
against certain kinds of mischief, the court
is not to make inroads by making
etymological excursions.' "
 13. While interpreting a statute,
the problem or mischief that the statute was
designed to remedy should first be
identified and then a construction that
suppresses the problem and advances the
remedy
should
be
adopted.
[Indian
Performing Rights Society Ltd. v. Sanjay
Dalia, (2015) 10 SCC 161 : (2016) 1 SCC
(Civ) 55] It is settled law that exemption
clauses in beneficial or social welfare
legislations
should
be
given
strict
construction
[Shivram
A.
Shiroor
v.
Radhabai Shantram Kowshik, (1984) 1
SCC 588] . It was observed in Shivram A.
Shiroor v. Radhabai Shantram Kowshik
[Shivram A. Shiroor v. Radhabai Shantram
Kowshik, (1984) 1 SCC 588] that the
exclusionary provisions in a beneficial
legislation should be construed strictly so
as to give a wide amplitude to the principal
object of the legislation and to prevent its
evasion on deceptive grounds. Similarly, in
Minister Administering the Crown Lands
Act v. NSW Aboriginal Land Council
[Minister Administering the Crown Lands
Act v. NSW Aboriginal Land Council, 2008
HCA 48 : (2008) 237 CLR 285] , Kirby, J.
held that the principle of providing
purposive
construction
to
beneficial
legislations mandates that exceptions in
such legislations should be construed
narrowly."

13. With regard to interpretation of
statutory provisions, requirement also is for
examining the object sought to be achieved
by such a provision and the nexus of any
exclusion clause to the object sought to be
achieved.
Regarding
such
proposition
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Director General, CRPF & Ors vs.
Janardan Singh & Ors. reported in 2018
LAB. I.C. 3302 after considering various
earlier judgments has held that although
Article 14 does not prohibit reasonable
classification but at the same time the said
classification must be founded on an
968 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
intelligible
differentia
and
that
such
differentia must have a rational nexus to the
object sought to be achieved by such
classification. Relevant paragraphs of the
aforesaid judgment are as follows:

 "18. Article 14 does not prohibit
reasonable classification but for passing
test of permissible classification there are
two conditions which have been time and
again laid down and reiterated. It is useful
to refer to the Constitution Bench Judgment
of this Court in AIR 1955 SC 191, Budhan
Choudhary versus State of Bihar in
paragraph 5, following has been laid down.

 5???..It is now well established
that
while
Article
14
forbids
class
legislation, it does not forbid reasonable
classification
for
the
purposes
of
legislation. In order, however, to pass the
test of permissible classification two
conditions must be fulfilled, namely, (i) that
the classification must be founded on an
intelligible differentia which distinguishes
persons or things that are grouped together
from others left out of the group and (ii)
that differentia must have a rational
relation to the object sought to be achieved
by the statute in question. The classification
may be founded on different bases; namely,
geographical, or according to objects or
occupations or the like. What is necessary
is that there must be a nexus between the
basis of classification and the object of the
Act under consideration. It is also well
established by the decisions of this Court
that Article 14 condemns discrimination
not only by a substantive law but also by a
law of procedure???.."

 19. Another judgment which
needs to be noticed with regard to Article
14 is a judgment of this Court in AIR 1970
SC 1453, Harakchand Ratanchand Banthia
and Others vs. Union of India and others.
In paragraph 23, following has been laid
down:

 "23.
??..When
a
law
is
challenged as violative of Article 14 of the
Constitution it is necessary in the first
place to ascertain the policy underlying the
statute and the object intended to be
achieved by it. Having ascertained the
policy and object of the Act the Court has
to apply a dual test in examining its validity
(1) whether the classification is rational
and based upon an intelligible differentia
which distinguishes persons or things that
are grouped together from others that are
left out of the group and (2) whether the
basis of differentiation has any rational
nexus or relation with its avowed policy
and object?? "

14. Upon applicability of aforesaid
judgments in the facts and circumstances of
the case, the object sought to be achieved
by exclusion indicated in the rules
pertaining to unmarried brother would be
inapplicable where the spouse of deceased
employee is also deceased at the time of
consideration
of
applications
for
compassionate appointment.

15. In view of discussion made
herein above, it being evident that the wife
of deceased employee pre-deceased him in
the year 2010 and it is not anybody's case
that he subsequently re-married or had a
spouse living at the time of his demise, in
the considered opinion of this court, the
rejection of petitioner's claim on that
ground is unsustainable.

16.
Considering
aforesaid,
impugned order dated 25th May 2016 is
hereby quashed by issuance of writ in the
nature of Certiorari. A further writ in the
10 All. Shaukat Ali Siddiqi Vs. Committee of Management, Chasmai Rahmat Oriental College
 & Ors.
969
nature of Mandamus is issued
commanding the opposed party No.3 i.e.
Assistant Controller Vidhik Maap Vigyan
Faizabad
Range,
Faizabad
to
revisit
petitioner's application for compassionate
appointment in case he is able to
substantiate that he was dependent upon the
deceased brother. Such a decision shall be
taken
by
the
concerned
authority
expeditiously within a period of six weeks
from the date a certified copy of this order
is served upon the concerned authority.
17.
Resultantly,
the
petition
succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear
their own costs.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 969
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ - A No. 35723 of 2007

Shaukat Ali Siddiqi ...Petitioner
Versus
Committee
of
Management,
Chasmai
Rahmat Oriental College & Ors.
...Respondent

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Indra Raj Singh, Irfan Raza Khan, Mahesh
Prasad, Mohd Naseer Ahmed, Prakash
Padia ( Ele.), Satish Chandra Sinha

Counsel for the Respondents:
 Anant Vijay, C.S.C., Pranav Mishra

Issue for Consideration
1. Application of Rule of 1987 to Arabic-Persian
Madrasa.
2.
Effect
of
non-compliance
of
Salutary
procedures regarding fixing date, time and place
of holding enquiry before passing dismissal
order.
3. Effect of attaining the age of superannuation
on the survival of cause of action and on the
right of the petitioner dismissed from service
illegally.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Dismissal - Minority
institution - Principle of natural justice -
Applicability - Right to defend charges,
protection
thereof
-
Petitioner
was
appointed
as
Assistant
Teacher
in
Tehtania Section (Primary Section) of
Arabic-Persian
Madrasa
-
Institution
maintained
out
of
State
funds
-
Delinquent failed to file reply to the
charges
-
No
opportunity
of
cross
examination
was
given
-
Salutary
procedure regarding fixing date, time and
place of holding enquiry was not complied
with - Effect - Application of Rule of 1987
to Arabic-Persian Madrasa also felt into
consideration :

Held : It is well settled that regulation by the
State is permissible by the exercise of its
executive authority regarding any kind of
activity, which a law of the competent
legislature does not regulate. Therefore, the
Rules of 1987, which have been framed in the
exercise of the executive power of the State, as
a government order, would certainly regulate
procedure for holding inquiries against teachers
of Arabic-Persian Madrasa to the extent they
provide for it. [Para 15]

Further held : The Institution contemplated
dismissing the petitioner from service, which is
certainly a major penalty - a terminal one.
Salutary procedure requires that in such a case,
date, time and place for holding the inquiry be
intimated to the delinquent, and witnesses
heard in support of the charges to be produced
by the establishment - The mere fact that the
petitioner has not responded or failed to answer
the charge-sheet, does not deprive him in
accordance with the salutary principles of
holding departmental inquiries in major penalty
matters of opportunity to appear at the inquiry,
where witnesses for the establishment are
heard and cross-examine them - On account of
non-adherence
to
salutary
procedure,
as
indicated above, the proceedings against the