# Kamla Devi v. State of U.P. & Ors - **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 1829 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2026-04-15 - **Case number:** Writ A No. 6504 of 2014 - **Bench:** Irshad Ali - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/kamla-devi-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54728 - **Pages:** 6 ## Text 4 All. Kamla Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 1829 29. No order as to costs. ---------- (2026) 4 ILRA 1829 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 15.04.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J. Writ A No. 6504 of 2014 Kamla Devi ...Petitioner Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Issue(s) for consideration Whether petitioner's engagement as Mukhya Sewika/Anganwadi worker disentitles the family members of the deceased employees from compassionate appointment? Headnotes A. Service Law - Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of the Dependents of Government Servant Dying-inHarness Rules, 1974: Rule 5 - Compassionate appointment - Engagement as Mukhya Sewika/Anganwadi worker does not disentitle the family members of the deceased employees from compassionate appointment and the respondent nos. 2 and 3 have failed to consider the financial hardships of the family. (Para 19) Rule 5 bars compassionate appointment where the spouse is already employed under the Central/State Government or a Government-controlled corporation. But the petitioner was working on the post of Mukhya Sewika, Unnao and superannuated on the said post on 30.06.2013 and it is now well settled that engagement as Anganwadi worker or Mukhya Sewika is not a regular government service. Such engagement is contractual in nature, and remuneration is in the form of honorarium, not salary. In these circumstances, act and action of the respondents for denying the benefits provided under provisions of Dying-in-Harness Rules to the family members of the deceased employee is per se illegal and is not sustainable in the eyes of law. (Para 16) B. The object of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate relief to the family of the deceased employee to tide over the financial crisis. In the present case the deceased was the sole breadwinner; the petitioner is a housewife with small agricultural land and the family consists of dependent children. It is pertinent to note that there is no finding by the authority comparing the income of the deceased at the time of death and income of the family after his death. The authority has failed to undertake this crucial exercise, rendering the decision arbitrary. (Para 17, 18) Writ petition allowed. (E-4) Case Law Cited Aman Pathak Vs. State of U.P. and 2 others, Neutral Citation No. 2024:AHC:97182 (Para 9) List of Acts Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of the Dependents of Government Servant Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974. 1830 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES List of Keywords service, compassionate appointment, dying-in-harness, recruitment, financial crisis, contractual, engagement. Appearances for Parties For Petitioner(s): Panna Lal Gupta For Respondent(s): C.S.C. (Delivered by Hon'ble Irshad Ali, J.) 1. Heard Shri P.L. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-State. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs: "(I) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari, quashing the order dated 21.9.2013 contained as Annexure No.1 to this writ petition. (II) To issue a writ, order and direction in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the opposite parties to consider the case of the petitioner and appoint the son of the petitioner under Dying-in-Harness Rules. (III) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus, commanding the opposite parties not to give effect of letter pursuance of her letter dated 12.7.2013 which is duly received in his office dated 16.7.2013 by accommodating his son on compassionate grounds according to law laid down under Dying-in-Harness Rules. (IV) To issue any other order or direction which this Honble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case." 3. Factual matrix of the case is that the husband of petitioner Ram Kumar was initially appointed in the Irrigation Department on daily wages basis and seen the work and conduct of Late Ram Kumar, he was appointed on the post of Beldar as work-charge employee in the Department. The work and conduct of Late Ram Kumar was much satisfactory and his work and conduct of Late Ram Kumar was always appreciated by their higher officers and there is no as such complaint against the Late Ram Kumar from any corner. The husband of the petitioner died during service period on 26.12.2010, leaving behind his wife Kamla Devi, one son Sanjay Kumar Yadav and daughter Manju Yadav. On 23.5.2013, after death of her husband, the petitioner moved an application with affidavit for providing appointment under Dying-in-Harness Rules to her son Sanjay Kumar Yadav with relevant documents and papers as required. On 21.9.2013, in pursuance to application dated 23.5.2013, the opposite party no.3 by way of arbitrary manner, declined the claim of the petitioner. On 12.07.2013, the petitioner 4 All. Kamla Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 1831 submitted an application with all relevant document which have always been received by the Officer Clerk of opposite paryt no.3. Due to sudden death of the husband of the petitioner, the entire family of the deceased employee is facing hardship and on the verge of starvation, but the opposite party are not providing employment to her son Sanjy Yadav on compassionate ground under Dying-in-Harness Rules . 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Ram Kumar in the year 2010 fell seriously ill and at last he died on 26.12.2010 during his service period leaving behind him, his wife Kamla Devi, one son Sanjay Kumar and daughter Manju Yadav. Thereafter, his wife, Kamla Devi being a House-lady and small agriculturist is anyhow bearing the liability of the marriage of her daughter Manju Yadav and one son. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the petitioner on 23.5.2013 moved an application with affidavit to the opposite party No. 3 for appointment of her son Sanjay Kumar Yadav under Dying-in-Harness Rules with relevant documents and paper as required by the opposite party No. 3. He also submitted that her son is Post Graduate and Handicapped and having good academic career and can be accommodated in the Department for all class III posts. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the opposite party no. 3 declined the claim of the petitioner in an arbitrary manner vide order dated 21.9.2013 on the ground that according the Govt. Order/Ordinance dated 20,01,1999 the appointment of Sanjay Kumar Yadav is not possible because the petitioner is working in District Bal Vikas Pustahar Deptt. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that according to the ordinance dated 20.1.1999, the Rule 5 has been amended, and column (1) has been replaced by column (2) and petitioner already by her letter dated 12.7.2013 has declared which has duly received in the office of the opposite party No. 3 that she is not in service in any department and she is not taking service benefit from any department. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submitted that the family of Late Ram Kumar is now running from piller to post for appointment under Dying-in-Harness Rules and his family is facing the starvation problem and his poor widow(petitioner) is unable to collect two time bread for her only son due to having few agricultural land. Moreover, the action of opposite party no. 2 and 3 is totally arbitrary, malafide, discriminatory and is bad in the eyes of law and is liable to be quashed. 9. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the judgment rendered in the case of Aman Pathak v. State of U.P. and 2 others reported in Neutral Citation No.-2024:AHC:97182. 10. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents-State submitted that in the impugned order dated 21/09/2013 the opposite party no. 3 has clearly mentioned that due to notification dated 20/01/1999 issued by the State Government son of the petitioner could not be appointed under the Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974, because at the time of death of husband the 1832 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES petitioner was working in the Office of District Child Development Pushtahar. By impugned Order dated 21/09/2013 the opposite party no. 3 had directed the petitioner to produce certificate with regard to employment and submit certificate issued by the Office of District Child Development Pushtahar. In pursuance thereof the petitioner submitted reply on 26/11/2013 in the Office of the opposite party no. 3 and stated that the petitioner had completed age of superannuation on 30/06/2013 and was working on the post of Mukhya Sewika, Unnao. The Husband of the petitioner was died on 26/12/2010 and was working on the post of Beldar and according to Rule-5 of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of the Dependents of Government Servant Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974, the petitioner is not entitled to get appointment under the Rules 11. Learned Standing Counsel lastly submitted that grounds as taken by petitioner are not tenable and therefore, the writ petition has no merit and is liable to be dismissed. 12. Having heard the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I perused the material on record as well as case-law cited by learned counsel for the petitioner. 13. To resolve the controversy involved in the present writ petition, Rule 5 Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of the Dependents of Government Servant Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 is extracted hereinbelow: "In case, a government servant dies in harness after the commencement of these rules and the spouse of the deceased government servant is not already employed under the Central Government or State Government or a Corporation owned or Controlled by the Central Government or a State Government, one member of his family who is not already employed under the Central Government or a State Government or a Corporation owned and controlled by the Central Government or a State Government or a Corporation owned and controlled by the Central Government or a State Government shall, on making an application for the purposes, be given a suitable employment in government service on a post except the post which is within the purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, in relaxation of the normal recruitment rules if the such person- (i) Fulfills the educational qualifications prescribed for the post (ii) Is otherwise qualified for the government service; and (iii) Makes application for employment within 5 five years from the date of the death of the Government Servant: Provided that where the State Government is satisfied for the times limit fixed for making the application for employment causes undue hardship in any particular case may dispense such or relax the requirement as it may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner. As far as possible, such an employment should be given in the same department in which the deceased Government Servant was employed prior to his death". 4 All. Kamla Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. 1833 14. Perusal of the above-extracted shows that Rule 5 bars compassionate appointment where the spouse is already employed under the Central/State Government or a Governmentcontrolled corporation. 15. The judgment relied upon by the petitioner Aman Pathak vs State of UP and Ors. (Writ A No. - 15485 of 2023) clearly lays down that such honorarium-based engagement cannot be treated as a sufficient source of livelihood nor equivalent to government employment, relevant paragraph is mentioned hereinafter; "10. The position of the law that then appears is that what has to be compared is the income of the deceased at the time of his death and the family's income after his demise from various sources. This would be a safe index to assess, if indeed the family have been plunged into a crisis or they still have a reasonably normal life to lead, which is not ridden by financial crisis. It must be remarked that the State Authority and their Committee have singularly omitted to consider this very relevant material as to what was the deceased's income, when he passed away and the family's income when the District Cane Officer Officer appraised their circumstances. 11. The deceased's widow is no doubt employed as an Anganwadi Karyakatri, but that does not mean that the family are not financially struggling. An Anganwadi Karyakatri is not a government employment. It is pleaded in paragraph No.6 of the supplementary affidavit that the engagement as an Anganwadi Karyakatri is a contractual job, for which no salary is paid. The petitioner's mother receives an honourarium in the sum of Rs.3250/- - 6500/- per month. It must the remarked that a contractual employment that offers the sum of money that the petitioner alleges is hardly any reckonable financial resource to guarantee a subsistence level of income for the family. The fact that the petitioner's mother receives an honourarium for her engagement as an Anganwadi Karyakatri in the sum of Rs.3250/- 6500/- per month, has not been denied in any of the two counter affidavits filed on behalf of the respondents. Therefore, the fact asserted in paragraph No.6 of the supplementary affidavit has to be accepted as correct. In fact, in the supplementary counter affidavit, contents of paragraph No.6 about the fact of what the nature of engagement of an Anganwadi Karyakatri is and what remuneration is received, has not at all been denied or pleaded to by the respondents." 16. In the case in hands, the petitioner was working on the post of Mukhya Sewika, Unnao and superannuated on the said post on 30.06.2013. However, it is now well settled that engagement as Anganwadi worker or Mukhya Sewika is not a regular government service. Such engagement is contractual in nature, and remuneration is in the form of honorarium, not salary. In these circumstances, act and action of the respondents for denying the benefits provided under provisions of Dying-in-Harness Rules to the family members of the deceased employee is per se illegal and is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Aman Pathak (supra), is fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 17. The object of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate relief to the family of the deceased employee to tide over the financial crisis. In the present case the deceased was the sole breadwinner; the petitioner is a housewife with small agricultural land and the family consists 1834 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES of dependent children. It is pertinent to note that there is no finding by the authority comparing the income of the deceased at the time of death and income of the family after his death. The authority has failed to undertake this crucial exercise, rendering the decision arbitrary. 18. Appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment. The reason for making such a benevolent scheme by the State or the public sector undertaking is to see that the dependents of the deceased are not deprived of the means of livelihood . It only enables the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. 19. Considering in totalities of facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that engagement as Mukhya Sewika/Anganwadi worker does not disentitle the family members of the deceased employees from compassionate appointment and the respondent nos. 2 and 3 have failed to consider the financial hardships of the family. 20. Accordingly, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Order dated 21.09.2013 contained as Annexure no.1 to this writ petition is quashed. 20. A direction is issued to the petitioner to make a fresh representation before the respondents annexing therewith all the necessary documents annexed with this petition along with certified copy of this order within a period of three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order and in case such a representation is filed within the period prescribed by this Court, the same shall be considered and decided by the respondents in favour of the petitioner in accordance with the observations made above and in accordance with law within a further period of two months thereafter. ---------- (2026) 4 ILRA 1834 ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CIVIL SIDE DATED: LUCKNOW 16.04.2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE IRSHAD ALI, J. Writ A No. 6757 of 2014 Smt. Rekha Devi & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents Issue(s) for consideration Whether the appointments of the petitioners as Assistant Teachers were legally valid and 'deemed approved' by operation of law, despite the District Basic Education Officer's subsequent rejection? Headnotes A. Service Law - Uttar Pradesh Junior High Schools (Payment of Salaries of Teachers anf other Employees) Act, 1978: Section 12; Uttar Pradesh Recognised Basic Schools (Junior High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers) Rules, 1978: Rule 9, 10 - The three petitioners