# Neelam Devi v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 11 ILRA 824
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2023-10-30
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 4493 of 2023
- **Bench:** Manish Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/neelam-devi-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49421
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Service Law - UP Government Servants
dying-in-harness Rules, 1974 - R. 2 (c)
and 7 - Compassionate appointment -
Both son and widowed daughter-in-law
staked claim - Son was given primacy
over widowed daughter-in-law - Validity
challenged - Held, Rule 2 does not
indicate any primacy required to be
accorded to one member of family with
regard to claim of another - It is required
to be adverted to only in accordance with
Rule 7 which provide that the decision has
to be taken keeping in view the overall
interest of the welfare of entire family,
particularly
the
widow
and
minor
members thereof - High Court declared
impugned order contrary to Rule 7. (Para
11, 15 and 16)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:

## Text

824 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in the context of the introduction of a
scheme for compassionate appointment that
came into effect in the respondent's
establishment in that case after the date of
demise of the employee in harness. But the
principle in the said decision, again based
on Bheemesh alias Bheemappa, is the
same.

22. No other point was pressed on
behalf of either party.

23. In the result, this petition
succeeds and shall stand allowed. The
impugned order dated 03.09.2013, passed
by the learned District Judge, Firozabad is
hereby quashed. A mandamus is issued to
the learned District Judge, Firozabad to
reconsider
the
petitioner's
claim
for
compassionate
appointment
within
a
month, in accordance with law and the
guidance in this judgment. Costs easy.
----------
(2023) 11 ILRA 824
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 30.10.2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

Writ-A No. 4493 of 2023
And
Writ-A No. 7492 of 2023

Neelam Devi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Savita Jain

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law - UP Government Servants
dying-in-harness Rules, 1974 - R. 2 (c)
and 7 - Compassionate appointment -
Both son and widowed daughter-in-law
staked claim - Son was given primacy
over widowed daughter-in-law - Validity
challenged - Held, Rule 2 does not
indicate any primacy required to be
accorded to one member of family with
regard to claim of another - It is required
to be adverted to only in accordance with
Rule 7 which provide that the decision has
to be taken keeping in view the overall
interest of the welfare of entire family,
particularly
the
widow
and
minor
members thereof - High Court declared
impugned order contrary to Rule 7. (Para
11, 15 and 16)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:
1. General Manager (D & PB) & ors. Vs Kunti
Tiwari & anr.; (2004) 7 SCC 271
2. Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs St. of Har.; (1994) 4
SCC 138

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

1.

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

2. Since both the petitions involve
same cause of action, they are being
disposed of by means of a common
judgment.

3. Writ-A No. 4493 of 2023 has been
filed by widowed daughter-in-law of the
deceased
challenging
order
dated
22.05.2023
whereby
her
claim
for
compassionate appointment under the U.P.
Government
Servants
dying-in-harness
Rules, 1974 has been rejected.

4. Writ-A No. 7492 of 2023 has been
filed by the unmarried son of deceased for
a direction to opposite parties to appoint
11 All. Neelam Devi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
825
him on compassionate basis under the
aforesaid Rules of 1974.

5. Learned counsel appearing for
widowed daughter-in-law submits that her
husband late Rajneesh Kumar pre-deceased
her father-in-law late Ram Chandra and
thereafter petitioner was fully dependent
upon her father-in-law. It is submitted that
petitioner also has two minor children aged
7 and 4 years and in terms of amendments
incorporated in the year 2001 vide
notification dated 12.11.2021 in the Rules
of 1974, widowed daughters-in-law are
now also included under the definition of
'family' as per Rule 2 (c) of the Rules of
1974.

6. It is submitted that petitioner being
the widowed daughter-in-law of deceased
and being covered under the definition of
family under the aforesaid Rules is facing
greater hardship than the son of deceased
since she also has to take care of her two
minor children. It is submitted that while
passing the impugned order, opposite
parties have not at all complied with Rule 7
of the Rules of 1974 and petitioner's
application for compassionate appointment
has been rejected only on the ground that
the son would have primacy over the
widowed daughter-in-law as also on the
ground that the widow and daughter of
deceased had given a no objection
certificate in favour of the son.

7. Learned counsel for appearing on
behalf of son of deceased in Writ-A No.
7492, on the other hand submits that the
son is required to be granted primacy in
consideration
for
compassionate
appointment since he is indicated under
Rule 2 (c) (ii) whereas the widowed
daughters-in-law are covered under Rule
(iii) of the aforesaid Rule. It is submitted
that petitioner also does not have any other
means to sustain himself and was fully
dependent upon his father and therefore he
is required to be granted primacy for
compassionate appointment as has been
correctly indicated in the order impugned
in Writ-A No. 4493 of 2023.

8. Learned State Counsel appearing
on behalf of opposite parties as on the other
hand submitted that in case there are more
than one claimants for compassionate
appointment, the provision under Rule 7 of
the Rules of 1974 is required to be
followed as has been done in the present
case and particularly in view of the fact that
no objection certificates were granted in
favour of the son of deceased by the mother
and sister.

9. Upon consideration submissions
advanced by learned counsel for parties and
perusal of material on record, it is quite
evident that the claim of widowed
daughter-in-law has been rejected on the
twin grounds that a son is required to be
given
primacy
for
compassionate
appointment in view of his being covered
under Rule 2 (c) (ii) whereas widowed
daughter-in-laws are covered under Clause
(iii) as also the fact that no objection
certificates have been issued in favour of
the son by his mother and sister.

10. It is admitted between the parties
that as yet no compassionate appointment
has been provided to the son either till date.

11. Considering the aforesaid facts, it
is evident that in case there has more than
one member of the family of deceased
claiming compassionate appointment, the
procedure as indicated in Rule 7 of the
Rules of 1974 is required to be followed
whereby decision has to be taken keeping
826 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in view the overall interest of the welfare of
entire family, particularly the widow and
minor members thereof.

12. In the present case, the impugned
order does not at all advert to greater
financial distress being faced by either of
the claimants. There is no subjective
satisfaction recorded by the authority
concerned regarding overall interest of
family which would be served better by
compassionate appointment to one or the
other member of the family. The order also
does not advert to any income being
derived by either of the parties or properties
being held by them.

13. The aspects which are required to
be
considered
for
compassionate
appointment have already been indicated
by Supreme Court in the case of General
Manager (D & PB) and others versus
Kunti Tiwari and another reported in
(20040 7 Supreme Court Cases 271. The
aforesaid
judgment
in
turned
places
reliance on another judgment of Supreme
Court in the case of Umesh Kumar
Nagpal versus State of Haryana (1994) 4
SCC 138. The aspects indicated therein are
as follows:-

"(a) Family pension.

(b) Gratuity amount received.

(c)
Employee's/employer's
contribution to provident fund.

(d) Any compensation paid by the
Bank or its Welfare Fund.

(e) Proceeds of LIC policy and
other
investments
of
the
deceased
employee.

(f) Income of family from other
sources.

(g) Employment of other family
members.

(h) Size of the family and
liabilities, if any, etc."

14. Although, the said factors have
been considered in the light of circulars of
banks but in the considered opinion of this
Court would also have relevance with
regard to compassionate appointment of
dependents of Government servants as
well.

15. So far as question of primacy of
one
claimant
vis-a-vis
the
other
is
concerned, a perusal of Rule 2 of the Rules
of 1974 will make it evident that it merely
indicates the definition of family pertaining
to the deceased and does not indicate any
primacy required to be accorded to one
member of family with regard to claim of
another, which in fact is required to be
adverted to only in accordance with Rule 7
of the Rules of 1994. Therefore, this Court
does not find any justification in the
impugned order for recording a finding that
the son of deceased would have primacy
over the claims of the widowed daughterin-law. Such a finding would run contrary
to Rule 7 of the Rules of 1994.

16. The other aspect as recorded in
the impugned order pertaining to grant of
no objection by other family members in
favour of one particular family member
also does not find any sustenance from any
provision of the Rules of 1974. Such a
procedure adopted by the impugned order
also contrary to Rule 7 of the Rules of 1994
whereunder the overall interest and welfare
of the family, particularly the widow and
11 All. Chandan Kumar Vs. The Chairman/ Principal Officer, State Bank of India, New Delhi
 & Ors.
827
minors of the family are required to have a
predominating interest and not a no
objection certificate by other members of
family in favour of a single member of the
family.

17. In view of aforesaid discussion,
the impugned order clearly has been passed
against the provisions of Rule 7 of the
Rules of 1994 as is therefore vitiated.
Accordingly, the order dated 22.05.2023 in
Writ-A No. 4493 of 2023 is quashed by
issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari.
A further writ in the nature of mandamus is
issued directing the opposite party no. 2 i.e.
Engineer-in-Chief (Project/Planning), Public
Works Department, Lucknow to re-consider the
matter and pass fresh orders pertaining to claims
of Smt. Neelam Devi and Sri Rajnikant strictly in
accordance with Rule 7 of the Rule 1994 and in
the light of judgments referred to hereinabove
particularly adverting to which of the two would
face greater financial hardship and grant of
compassionate appointment to which of the two
would serve the greater interest of the family and
the minors.

18. Such a decision shall be taken by
opposite party no. 2 within a period of eight
weeks from the date a certified copy of this
order is produced before him.

19. Resultantly, the Writ-A No. 4493
of 2023 is allowed and Writ-A No. 7492 of
2023 is disposed of.
----------
(2023) 11 ILRA 827
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 24.07.2023

BEFORE

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

Writ-A No. 9365 of 2023
Chandan Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
The Chairman/ Principal Officer, State
Bank of India, New Delhi & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Kanhaiya Lal

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Satish Chaturvedi

A.
Service
Law
-
Compassionate
Appointment
-
S.B.I.-
Scheme
for
Compassionate
Appointment
in
Public
Sector Banks - Applicability - SBI Scheme
for
Compassionate
Appointment
in
Exceptional Circumstances - Ex Gratia
Payment - Eligibility Criteria
Petitioner, son of a deceased S.B.I.employee,
sought compassionate appointment under the
Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of
Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules,
1974, following his father's death in harness on
17.10.2016. The Bank rejected the claim, citing
the absence of a compassionate appointment
scheme and offering ex gratia payment instead,
as per the SBI Scheme for Payment of Ex-Gratia
Lumpsum Amount in Lieu of Compassionate
Appointment. The petitioner challenged the
rejection, relying on the Government of India's
Scheme for Compassionate Appointment in
Public Sector Banks (effective 05.08.2014).

Held: The Government of India's Scheme for
Compassionate Appointment in Public Sector
Banks
(2014)
is
a
model
scheme,
not
mandatorily applicable to public sector banks
unless adopted by their Board of Directors. The
S.B.I.adopted
it
with
modifications,
implementing
the
SBI
Scheme
for
Compassionate
Appointment
in
Exceptional
Circumstances and the SBI Scheme for Payment
of Ex-Gratia Lumpsum Amount, both effective
from 05.08.2014. Compassionate appointment is
limited to exceptional cases, i.e., death during
official duty due to violence, terrorism, robbery,
or dacoity, or death within five years of
appointment or before age 30, leaving a
dependent spouse and/or minor children. The
petitioner's case did not meet these criteria, as