# Km. Mohini v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 10 ILRA 810
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-08-16
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 4174 of 2022
- **Bench:** Neeraj Tiwari
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/km-mohini-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47852
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Law
-
Compassionate
Appointment
-
U.P.
Recruitment
of
Dependents
of
Government
Servants
Dying in Harness Rules, 1974; The Uttar
Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of
Government Servants Dying in Harness
(Twelfth
Amendment)
Rules,
2021
-
Language of Rules is very much clear, which
provides that first right of appointment on
compassionate ground goes to husband or
wife as the case may be in case of death of
Government employee. (Para 6)

In the present case, there is no dispute of
fact that deceased-employee was married and
his
wife
is
alive
and
also
claiming
appointment
on
compassionate
ground.
Therefore, under the Rules, she is only
entitled for appointment and no relief can be
granted to petitioner-sister, which is at Serial
No. 4 in order of hierarchy given in Rules,
1974 read with amended Rules 2021, in case
deceased Government employee is unmarried.
Therefore, petition is having no force and
liable to be dismissed. (Para 7)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

## Text

810 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

7. It is admitted case of the petitioner
that his father was working with the State
Government at the time of death of his
mother who was already a government
servant, therefore, in view of the clear
statutory provision of Rule-5 of 1974
Rules, the petitioner is not entitled for
being
considered
on
compassionate
grounds and therefore his candidature has
rightly been rejected by the impugned
order.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner
at this stage has drawn attention of the
Court towards government order dated
17.06.2014 which is on record at page no.
32 of the petition and has submitted that the
appointment under the Rules 5 of 1974
Rules cannot be refused merely on the
ground that financial status of the applicant
is sound.

9. Perusal of the impugned order
dated
17.10.2016
shows
that
the
candidature of the petitioner has not been
rejected on the ground of his sound
financial status rather has been rejected as
the other spouse i.e. father of the petitioner
was in government service at the time of
death of the deceased (mother of the
petitioner) who was also in government
service and thus, the authority has rejected
the claim of the petitioner on the ground
that since the other spouse of the deceased
was already in government service at the
time of death of the mother of the
petitioner, therefore, as per Rule - 5 of
1974 Rules, there was no occasion for
providing compassionate appointment to
the petitioner.

10. The petition being devoid of
merits and is accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2022) 10 ILRA 810
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.08.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE NEERAJ TIWARI, J.

Writ A No. 4174 of 2022

Km. Mohini ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Prakhar Tandon

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Shravan Kumar Pandey, Sri
Shyam Narain Pandey, Sri Yashwant Singh

A.
Service
Law
-
Compassionate
Appointment
-
U.P.
Recruitment
of
Dependents
of
Government
Servants
Dying in Harness Rules, 1974; The Uttar
Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of
Government Servants Dying in Harness
(Twelfth
Amendment)
Rules,
2021
-
Language of Rules is very much clear, which
provides that first right of appointment on
compassionate ground goes to husband or
wife as the case may be in case of death of
Government employee. (Para 6)

In the present case, there is no dispute of
fact that deceased-employee was married and
his
wife
is
alive
and
also
claiming
appointment
on
compassionate
ground.
Therefore, under the Rules, she is only
entitled for appointment and no relief can be
granted to petitioner-sister, which is at Serial
No. 4 in order of hierarchy given in Rules,
1974 read with amended Rules 2021, in case
deceased Government employee is unmarried.
Therefore, petition is having no force and
liable to be dismissed. (Para 7)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari, J.)
10 All. Km. Mohini Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
811

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner, learned standing counsel for
respondent no. 1, Sri Yashwant Singh,
learned counsel for respondent nos. 2 and 3
and Sri S.N. Pandey, learned counsel for
respondent no. 4.

2. Present petition has been filed with
following prayers;

"(i). Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
directing the respondents to decide the
representation
dated
01.12.2021
for
compassionate
appointment
of
the
petitioner within a month.

(ii). Issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of mandamus
directing
the
respondents
to
grant
compassionate
appointment
to
the
petitioner."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that father of petitioner was
working on the post of "Safai Karmchari
Ward 99/107" at Nagar Nigam, Kanpur and
during the course of service, he died. After
his death, brother of petitioner (son of
deceased- employee) has been granted
appointment on compassionate ground
under the provisions of U.P. Recruitment of
Dependents of Government Servants Dying
in
Harness
Rules,
1974
(hereinafter
referred to as "Rules, 1974") as "Safai
Karmchari" to cater the need of all family
members
dependent
upon
deceased-
employee
including
petitioner-
sister.
Unfortunately, in a road accident, brother of
petitioner also died on 16.10.2021. After
his death, her mother has given consent for
appointment of petitioner on compassionate
ground. Petitioner has filed representation
dated 01.12.2021 before respondent no. 2
for appointment, which is pending for
decision, therefore, a direction may be
issued to respondent no. 2 to decide the
same and appoint the petitioner on
compassionate ground under the provisions
of Rules, 1974 amended vide The Uttar
Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of
Government Servants Dying In Harness
(Twelfth
Amendment)
Rules,
2021
(hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 2021).

4. Learned counsels for the respondents
objected the submissions raised by learned
counsel for the petitioner and submitted that as
per Rules, 1974 readwith amended Rules 2021,
definition of family is given in order of
hierarchy. After death of deceased- employee,
first right goes to husband or wife, second right
goes to sons/ adopted sons, third right goes to
daughters (including adopted daughters) and
widowed daughter-in-law and fourth right goes
to unmarried brothers, unmarried sisters and
widowed mother dependent on the deceased
Government
servant,
if
the
deceased
Government servant was unmarried. He next
submitted that in the present case, there is no
dispute that deceased- employee was married
and his wife has also raised a claim for
appointment on compassionate ground after
death of her husband. Therefore, as per Rules,
1974 readwith amended Rules 2021, petitioner
has no right of appointment after death of
deceased- employee and respondent no. 4 is
only having right to be appointed on the
compassionate ground after death of her
husband.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner
could not dispute the aforesaid facts and
only submitted that earlier appointment was
given to her brother to cater the need of all
family members dependant upon her father,
therefore, petitioner is also entitled to get
appointment after death of her brother.

6. I have considered the rival
submissions raised by learned counsel for
812 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the parties as well as perused the record
and Rules, 1974 readwith amended Rules
2021. Language of Rules is very much
clear, which provides that first right of
appointment on compassionate ground goes
to husband or wife as the case may be in
case of death of Government employee. For
ready reference, Rules, 1974 is being
quoted hereinbelow;

7. In the present case, there is no
dispute of fact that deceased- employee
was married and his wife is alive and also
claiming appointment on compassionate
ground. Therefore, under the Rules, she is
only entitled for appointment and no relief
can be granted to petitioner- sister, which is
at Serial No. 4 in order of hierarchy given
in Rules, 1974 readwith amended Rules
2021,
in
case
deceased
Government
10 All. Rajeev Kumar Vs. Kamlesh Kumar Singh & Ors.
813
employee is unmarried. Therefore, petition
is having no force and liable to be
dismissed.

8. So far as claim of petitioner about
her maintenance is concerned, it is open for
her to seek appropriate remedy against
respondent no. 4, if any Rule provides for
the same.

9. Accordingly, writ petition is
dismissed with aforesaid observations. No
order as to costs.
----------
(2022) 10 ILRA 813
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 28.09.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DEVENDRA KUMAR
UPADHYAYA, J.
THE HON'BLE SAURABH SRIVASTAVA, J.

Special Appeal No. 395 of 2022

Rajeev Kumar ...Appellant
Versus
Kamlesh Kumar Singh & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Lalta Prasad Misra

Counsel for the Respondents:
Amrendra Nath Tripathi, C.S.C.
A. Administrative Law - Nomination of
Chairman - Jurisdiction - U.P. Technical
Education
Act,
1962
-
Scheme
of
Administration: Clause 7 - It is observed
that cancellation of earlier panel and
preparation of fresh panel because the
earlier panel was non-existent, is not
acceptable
for
the
reason
that
the
occasion
for
the
Committee
of
Management to prepare new panel did not
arise in this case as the State Government
had not taken any decision on the first
panel
before the
second
panel
was
proposed
by
the
Committee
of
Management. (Para 28)

(1) Interpretation - The answer to the point
for determination that whether in terms of the
provisions contained in Clauses 7(2)(a) and
7(2)(b) of the Scheme of Administration, the
State Government could have acted upon the
earlier panel and whether appointment from the
said panel could have been made, though one
of the persons of panel suggested by the
Committee of Management of the institution,
had died., lies in correctly interpreting the
provision contained in Clause 7(2)(b) of the
Scheme of Administration. The said provision
clearly states that in case no one is
nominated as Chairman of the Committee
of Management of the institution from
amongst
the
persons
of
the
panel
suggested
by
the
Committee
of
Management,
the
Committee
of
Management shall submit a second panel
containing three names. (Para 17, 18)

(2) Jurisdiction to recommend second
panel - A plain reading of Clause 7(2)(b)
of the Scheme of Administration reveals
that
second
panel
can
be
recommended/sent/proposed
by
the
Committee of Management only if the
State Government does not nominate any
person from the first panel. It would simply
mean that the Committee of Management will
assume jurisdiction to recommend the second
panel if the State Government rejects all the
names in the first panel and refuses to nominate
anyone of them. (Para 19)

In the instant case, the process of nomination of
Chairman in case of any vacancy in the office of
Chairman will start from the resolution of the
Committee of Management proposing a panel of
three persons, as per Clause 7(2)(a) of the
approved
Scheme
of
Administration.
The
process
further
proceeds
with
the
recommendation to be made by the Director,
Technical
Education,
U.P.
on
the
panel
suggested/sent/proposed by the Committee of
Management and this process comes to an end
only
once
the
decision
on
the
panel
proposed/sent/suggested by the Committee of
Management and on the recommendation made