# Pradip Pal v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 4 ILRA 406
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-04-09
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 14482 of 2023
- **Bench:** Ajay Bhanot
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/pradip-pal-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53125
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Law
-
Compassionate
appointment - Permanent status of
deceased
employee
-
Deficiency
in
service record - Employer's duty to
maintain service book - Appointment
refused solely due to lack of entry of
confirmation - Non-application of mind
- Nature of service ascertainable from
benefits and continuity - Failure of
employer to maintain accurate service
records cannot prejudice the employee's
dependents - Attributes of permanency
such as uninterrupted long service and
service benefits must be considered -
Denial of appointment based solely on
incomplete records is arbitrary- Remand
for fresh consideration-Petition partly
allowed. (Paras 6 to 11)

HELD:

Entries in the service book and service records
are made by the employer. The said documents
remain in the exclusively custody of the
employer. It is the duty of the employer
maintain and update the service records of
employees. Discrepancies or deficiencies in
the service book or records are liable to be
enquired into before penalizing or faulting an
employee. In absence of such enquiry the
said deficiencies in the service records alone
cannot be made the basis of disputing the
nature of appointment of the petitioner's
deceased-father without proper enquiry. (Para
7)

All
relevant
attributes
of
a
permanent
appointment are also liable to be examined to
determine the nature of the appointment of
the petitioner's father. (Para 8)

The respondents-authorities while considering
the claim of the petitioner neglected to
evaluate the aforesaid aspects which are
germane to the controversy. Non application
of
mind
to
the
aforesaid
relevant
considerations vitiates the impugned order
dated 17.05.2023. (Para 9)

Petition allowed. (E-14)

## Text

406 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Through L.Rs. & Ors. v. Rajamani & Anr.
Etc., (Civil Appeal Nos.3640-3642 of
2025) decided on 06.03.2025.

----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 406
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.04.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Writ A No. 14482 of 2023

Pradip Pal ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Kauntey Singh, Siddharth Khare

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Satyam Singh, Udayan Nandan

Service
Law
-
Compassionate
appointment - Permanent status of
deceased
employee
-
Deficiency
in
service record - Employer's duty to
maintain service book - Appointment
refused solely due to lack of entry of
confirmation - Non-application of mind
- Nature of service ascertainable from
benefits and continuity - Failure of
employer to maintain accurate service
records cannot prejudice the employee's
dependents - Attributes of permanency
such as uninterrupted long service and
service benefits must be considered -
Denial of appointment based solely on
incomplete records is arbitrary- Remand
for fresh consideration-Petition partly
allowed. (Paras 6 to 11)

HELD:

Entries in the service book and service records
are made by the employer. The said documents
remain in the exclusively custody of the
employer. It is the duty of the employer
maintain and update the service records of
employees. Discrepancies or deficiencies in
the service book or records are liable to be
enquired into before penalizing or faulting an
employee. In absence of such enquiry the
said deficiencies in the service records alone
cannot be made the basis of disputing the
nature of appointment of the petitioner's
deceased-father without proper enquiry. (Para
7)

All
relevant
attributes
of
a
permanent
appointment are also liable to be examined to
determine the nature of the appointment of
the petitioner's father. (Para 8)

The respondents-authorities while considering
the claim of the petitioner neglected to
evaluate the aforesaid aspects which are
germane to the controversy. Non application
of
mind
to
the
aforesaid
relevant
considerations vitiates the impugned order
dated 17.05.2023. (Para 9)

Petition allowed. (E-14)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot, J.)

I. Introduction:

1. By the impugned order dated
17.05.2023 passed by the Deputy Cane
Commissioner/Chairman, Regional Cane
Service
Authority,
Bareilly
Region,
Bareilly, the claim of the petitioner for
grant of appointment on compassionate
ground has been declined.

2.
The
impugned
order
dated
17.05.2023 invalidates the claim of the
petitioner on the footing that the service
records available with the department do
not disclose the date on which the
petitioner's
deceased-father
was
made
permanent. The impugned order also
discloses that the petitioner's father was
initially
appointed
as
a
server
on
09.03.1983. Thereafter, he worked as peon
but the date of joining as permanent
4 All. Pradip Pal Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
407
employee is not disclosed in the service
book or records.

II. Submissions from the Bar:

3. Shri Siddharth Khare, learned
counsel for the petitioner has made the
following submissions:

(i). The petitioner's father was a
permanent employee in the respondentcorporation.

(ii). The petitioner or his father is
not responsible for the discrepancies in the
service records being maintained by the
respondent-corporation.

(iii). The petitioner's father was
always treated as a permanent employee.
The impugned order dated 17.05.2023 has
been passed only to defeat the right of the
petitioner
to
compassionate
grounds
appointment.

4. Shri Udayan Nandan, learned
counsel assisted by Shri Kauntey Singh,
learned counsel for the respondents No.5
have made the following submissions:

(i). The petitioner's father is not
depicted as the permanent employee in the
service book being maintained by the
respondent-corporation.

(ii). The petitioner is not entitled
to be appointed as compassionate ground
appointment.

III. Discussions and Findings:

5. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

6. Various attributes of permanent
appointment of the petitioner's father are
prima facie disclosed from the facts of this
case. The petitioner's father continued in
service for almost 29 years without break.
A service book was created in the name of
his father. The said service book is
maintained by the respondents only for
permanent employees. The petitioner's
family was paid GPF, gratuity, and leave
encashment.
Again
all
these
service
benefits are admissible to permanent
employees alone.

7. Entries in the service book and
service records are made by the employer.
The
said
documents
remain
in
the
exclusively custody of the employer. It is
the duty of the employer maintain and
update the service records of employees.
Discrepancies or deficiencies in the service
book or records are liable to be enquired
into before penalizing or faulting an
employee. In absence of such enquiry the
said deficiencies in the service records
alone cannot be made the basis of disputing
the nature of appointment of the petitioner's
deceased-father without proper enquiry.

8.
All
relevant
attributes
of
a
permanent appointment are also liable to be
examined to determine the nature of the
appointment of the petitioner's father.

9. The respondents-authorities while
considering the claim of the petitioner
neglected to evaluate the aforesaid aspects
which are germane to the controversy. Non
application of mind to the aforesaid
relevant
considerations
vitiates
the
impugned order dated 17.05.2023.

IV. Conclusions and Directions:
408 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

10.
The
impugned
order
dated
17.05.2023 is unsustainable in law. The
impugned order dated 17.05.2023 is
liable to be set aside and is set aside.

11. The matter is remitted to the
respondents-authorities
with
the
following directions:

I). The application of the
petitioner
for
appointment
on
compassionate grounds shall be decided
by the respondents-authorities as per
law within a period of three months
from the date of receipt of a certified
copy of this order.

II). While taking the decision
on the appointment of the petitioner, the
nature of the appointment of his
deceased-father shall be determined in
light of the observations made above.

III). The financial condition of
the petitioner's family at the time of the
death of the petitioner's father, and
dependancy on the deceased and all
other relevant facts as per law are liable
to be determined by the authority.

12. The writ petition is allowed to
the extent indicated above.

----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 408
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.04.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ A No. 15804 of 2024

Smt. Puja Yadav @ Pooja Yadav
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Om Prakash Yadava, Suresh Chandra
Kushwaha

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Service
Law
-
Compassionate
appointment - Married daughter - Delay
of
16
years
-
U.P.
Recruitment
of
Dependents
of
Government
Servants
Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 - Rule 2 (c)
(iii) struck down- Amendment of Rule 2(c)
in 2021 - Effect of earlier court ruling
declaring exclusion of married daughters
unconstitutional
-question
of
retrospective applicability does not arise-
Dependency not assessed - Rejection
order based on presumptions - Delay
condonable
where
litigation
explains
cause - Amendment held declaratory in
nature - Impugned order quashed -
Remand for fresh consideration.

HELD:

In so far as first point is concerned, I find that
petitioner had already moved an application
seeking compassionate appointment and the
said application was not considered and matter
continued to be lingered on and hence she was
forced to file writ petition being Writ A No.
52986 of 2016. The Court in that case refused
to grant writ of mandamus on the ground that
petitioner was not able to establish dependency
and reason assigned was that she was married
daughter and married daughters normally move
out of their house of the parents, and therefore,
they cannot be taken to have remained
dependent financially upon the parents. The
Court held that maintenance of wife rests upon
her
husband.
The
said
judgment
stood
superseded by the judgment of division bench,
which I have quoted hereinabove and in which
petitioner was directed to move application
afresh and authority was directed to consider
the same. Thus there arose no point to hold
that petitioner moved an application belatedly in
the year 2016 to dis-entitled her for claim of