# Prashant Rao v. U.O.I. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 3 ILRA 477
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-03-17
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 6977 of 2023
- **Bench:** Shree Prakash Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/prashant-rao-v-u-o-i-ors-54396
- **Pages:** 8

## Text

3 All. Prashant Rao Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
477
17. With aforesaid direction(s), the petition stands allowed.
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 477
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 17.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHREE PRAKASH SINGH, J.

Writ A No. 6977 of 2023

Prashant Rao ...Petitioner
Versus
U.O.I. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
(1) Validity of the order rejecting claim for compassionate appointment on the ground that spouse of
deceased (petitioner's mother) is an earning member as she is receiving the pension.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Compassionate appointment - Petitioner's claim was rejected on the ground
that his mother was receiving pension - Validity challenged - Clause 10.1 of Scheme, 2014
provide for rejection of such claim, if spouse is working and earning - Petitioner's mother was
treated as 'working and earning' member of the family - Validity challenged - Interpretation of
the words 'working and earning' felt into consideration
Held : The word 'earning' connotes as to get something in the present, means if services renders praesenti,
obtains some return in 'praesenti'. The pension is not received as a bounty, but as a privilege, therefore, the
services which has already been rendered in the past, cannot be termed as earning, therefore, a pensioner
cannot be treated as an earning person - The word 'earning' used under the provision of 'scheme 2014', for
compassionate appointment, does not cover the 'pension' received by a retired employee - Spouse of the
deceased employee i.e. mother of the petitioner is not, working employee, but has been retired, therefore,
the retired employee, only because of he/she gets the 'pension', per month, would not be treated/termed as
'working employee' - Quoting the provisions of clause 10.1 of the scheme 2014, the status of spouse of the
deceased i.e. mother of the petitioner, has erroneously been treated as 'working and earning' member of the
family.' [Para 17, 19, 20 and 23] (E-1)

Case Law Cited
Govind Prakash Verma vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Others (2005) 10 SCC 289; State Bank of
India and Others vs. Jaspal Kaur, (2007) 9 SCC 571; Shaukat Husain Beg Mirza vs. State of U.P. and another,
AIR 1959 All 769 - referred to.

List of Acts
Scheme for Compassionate Appointment, 2014 - Clause 10.1 and 10.2.

List of Keywords
Appointment on compassionate ground, Spouse, Working and earning, Member of family, Pension, Privilege,
Service benefits, Terminal benefits, Cursory manner, Fundamental right, Statutory right, Ratio of the
Judgment, Praesenti, Bounty.

Case Arising From
478 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Impugned order dated 17.07.2023 passed by the respondents rejecting the petitioner's claim for
compassionate appointment.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioner : Dr. Amrendra Nath Tripathi, Sr. Adv. Sanjeev Kumar Mishra, Aviral Singh, Vijay
Nandan Mani Tripathi
Advs. for the Respondents : Anil Kumar Srivastava, Neeraj Awasthi

(Delivered by Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh, J.)

1. Heard Dr. Amrendra Nath Tripathi, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Sanjeev
Kumar Mishra, learned counsels for the petitioner, Mr. Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for
the respondent-Insurance Company, no one is present for Union of India.

2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 17-072023 passed by opposite party no. 4, as well as the order/letter dated 27-06-2023 passed/issued by
Head Office, after summoning the same.

3. Dr. Amrendra Nath Tripathi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner has
drawn attention of this court towards the order/letter dated 27-06-2023, appended at page 7 of the
supplementary counter affidavit filed by the respondent-insurance company and argued that the
rules prevalent for considering the appointment on compassionate ground says that if the spouse is
working and earning equal to or more than the gross emoluments at the entry stage of assistant
cadre, the application of any other family member shall be rejected, though the spouse is neither
'working' nor 'earning', as after the death of father of the applicant, the mother is getting the pension
which will not come under the purview of salary. He submits that the father of the petitioner died in
harness, on 02-06-2020 and on 15-06-2020, the petitioner moved an application for appointment on
compassionate ground in regional office of the respondent-insurance company, which was rejected
on 27.06.2023, after the several reminders were sent and same was communicated vide letter dated
17-07-2023. He submitted that the ground, which is taken for rejection of the claim of the petitioner
apparent from the order dated 27-06-2023, is that considering the pension being received by the
mother of the petitioner as working and earning member of the family, but the same is unfounded
and is against the settled proposition of law.

4. He argued that infact the pension has been observed as a periodical payment as is
granted in respect of right, privilege, prerequisite, on account of past services.

5. He has drawn attention of this court towards the law settled by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Govind Prakash Verma Vs Life Insurance Corporation of India and Others,
reported in (2005)10 Supreme Court Cases 289.

6. Placing reliance on the above quoted judgment, he submitted that the scheme of
compassionate appointment is over and above, whatever is admissible to the legal representatives
of the deceased employee as benefits of service, which receives on the death of the employee. He
contended that the appointment cannot be refused for the reason that family receives certain
amounts under the rules, as service benefits. He further submitted that the amount, which was being
3 All. Prashant Rao Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
479
paid as family pension to the widow of the deceased or on account of the terminal benefits under
the rules, must not be considered as earning of the family.

7. Adding his arguments, he submitted that there is no application of mind of the
respondent-authorities while passing the order dated 27-06-2023 has taken note of clause 10.1 of
the Scheme of compassionate appointment applicable to the employees of the United India
Insurance Company, therefore, the authorities have misread the provision as is prescribed for the
appointment, on the compassionate ground. He submitted that the orders impugned are not only
erroneous, but, it also goes against the settled proposition of law and therefore, same are
unsustainable.

8. Concluding his arguments, he contented that the orders impugned is evident that no
reason whatsoever, is assigned and in a cursory manner, the claim of the applicant for appointment
has been rejected. He added that every order has to stand on its own legs as is long settled law
which is missing in the present matter, thus, submission is that the order is unsustainable.

9. On the other hand, Mr. Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-insurance company has opposed the contentions aforesaid and has drawn attention of
this court towards the averments made in paragraph nos. 7 & 9 of the Counter Affidavit. He argued
that the appointment under the Scheme of Compassionate appointment, cannot be a tool of a back
door appointment/entry into the public appointment and it is not a fundamental right, but, merely a
statutory right. He further submitted that the appointments in the public service are made strictly on
the basis of open invitation and the appointment on compassionate ground under "the scheme", is
based, in favour of the dependants of the employees, leaving their family in penury and without
means of any livelihood and so far as the present case is concerned, there is no such circumstances
prevailing as is apparent from the documents, produced before the authority concerned, while
taking the decision.

10. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on the Judgment of the Hon'ble
Apex Court reported in (2007) 9 Supreme Court Cases 571, State Bank of India and Others Vs
Jaspal Kaur and has referred paragraph nos. 20 to 25 of the said Judgment, which are extracted
hereinunder:-

 "20. The law with regard to employment on compassionate grounds for dependants of a
deceased employee was laid down by this Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana
[(1994) 4 SCC 138 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 930 : (1994) 27 ATC 537] , where this Court observed that:
(SCC pp. 139-40, para 2)

 Appointments in the public services are made strictly on the basis of open invitation of
applications and merit. However, exceptions are made in favour of dependants of employees dying
in harness and leaving their family in penury and without any means of livelihood.

 21. This Court has further observed in G.M. (D&PB) v. Kunti Tiwary [(2004) 7 SCC 271
: 2004 SCC (L&S) 943] that: (SCC p. 274, para 9)
480 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 "The particulars of their income have been noted in their application and it certainly
could not be said on the basis thereof that the respondents were living hand to mouth. The Division
Bench erred in diluting this criteria of penury to one of 'not very well-to-do'."

 22. It was again observed in 2005 by this Court in State Bank of India v. Vikas Dubey [
CA No. 7003 of 2005 dated 21-11-2005 reported at (2007) 9 SCC 579] , also followed the decision
in
Kunti
Tiwary
case
[(2004)
7
SCC
271
:
2004
SCC
(L&S)
943]
23. Hence a major criterion while appointing a person on compassionate grounds should be the
financial condition of the family the deceased person left behind. Unless the financial condition is
entirely penurious, such appointments cannot be made. In the present case the financial condition
of the respondent's family is not one of destitution, the appellants have already paid a sum of Rs
4,57,607 as terminal benefits (after deducting Rs 19,183 towards liabilities); a sum of Rs 2055 p.m.
was being paid towards family pension and monthly income under Staff Mutual Welfare Scheme
and in addition the total monthly income of the family comes to Rs 5855 (monthly pension of Rs
2055 + Rs 3800 p.m. as notional interest on the investment of Rs 4,57,607). The competent factfinding authority on the basis of the above financial details had arrived at the conclusion that the
financial condition of the family is not penurious and that the family earns sufficient income to
maintain themselves. Hence appointment on compassionate ground was not granted to the
respondent. We however, do not feel the necessity to interfere with this order of the Bank Authority
on the fact situation of this case.

 24. The competent authority of the Bank had to consider the case of the respondent as per
the parameters laid down in the scheme. Accordingly, while deciding on the financial condition of
the respondent factors like:

 (a) Family pension

 (b) Gratuity

 (c) Employee's/employer's contribution to the 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.were taken into consideration by the
competent authority and based on these details appointment was declined to the respondent on
compassionate ground.

 25. Also we are of the view that the specially constituted authorities in the rules or
regulations like the competent authority in this case are better equipped to decide the cases on
3 All. Prashant Rao Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
481
facts of the case and their objective finding arrived on the appreciation of the full facts should not
be disturbed. Both the Benches of the High Court that heard this present matter have erred in
entertaining the claim of the respondent and allowing the claim of the respondent. This was the
view taken in a recent decision of this Court in Union Bank of India v. M.T. Latheesh [(2006) 7
SCC 350 : 2006 SCC (L&S) 1646] , where the Court observed that: (SCC p. 365, para 37)

 "Learned Single Judge and the Division Bench by directing appointment has fettered the
discretion of the appointing and selecting authorities. The Bank had considered the application of
the respondent in terms of the statutory scheme framed by the Bank for such appointment."

11. Referring the aforesaid, he submits that the present case is squarely covered with the
ratio of the Judgment abovesaid and therefore, no interference is warranted.

12. Having heard learned counsels for the parties and after perusal of records, it transpires
that the father of the petitioner died in harness, on 02-06-2020 and thereafter, an application was
moved by the petitioner, for appointment, on compassionate ground, but the same has been rejected
on unfounded ground.

13. The fact remains that the mother of the petitioner was employed and she has been
retired and is getting pension. When the father of the petitioner died on 02-06-2020, he left behind
him the legal heirs namely, Smt. Prem Kumari Rao(wife), Siddhant Rao(Son) and Prashant
Rao(Son).

14. The petitioner claimed appointment under the Scheme for Compassionate
Appointment,2014(hereinafter referred to as "Scheme, 2014"), framed by the Government of India.
The "Scheme, 2014", has admittedly been adopted by the respondent-department and the same is
applicable to all the employees. The "Scheme, 2014" was subsequently amended on 03-04-2018,
w.e.f. 23-03-2018, which was also adopted by the respondent-department, vide the circular dated
07-06-2018. The relevant provisions i.e. Clause 10.1 and 10.2 of the "Scheme 2014", which
provides the provision regarding the terms of appointment, are quoted hereinunder :-

 10.1

 If spouse is working and earning equal to or more than the gross emoluments at the entry
stage of Assistant cadre, application of any other family member shall be rejected. However, if
spouse prefers to apply for Appointment over his/her existing Compassionate employment, the
same may be considered, subject to the condition that he/she would resign and submit the Relieving
Order from the existing employer before joining the Company.

 10.2

 If spouse is working and earning less than the gross emoluments at the entry stage of
Assistant cadre, application of any other dependent family member may be considered irrespective
of presence of an earning member subject to obtaining No Objection Certificate from the spouse."
482 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
15. The order of rejection is apparent that the same has been passed considering the
provision of clause 10.01 of the 'Scheme 2014' applicable to the employees of the respondentInsurance Company, as amended with effect from 23-03-2018. The emphasis has been made in the
decision, on the wordings "working and earning" and the amount received as pensionery benefits
by the mother of the petitioner has been treated under the purview of 'earning', though the fact
remains that the mother of the petitioner, who is receiving the pension, is not a working employee,
as the pension is granted after the retirement of an employee and the same is paid for the past
services rendered.

16. The words 'pension' and 'earning' as defined in "the Major Law Lexicon" by P
Ramannatha Aiyar, as follows:-

 "Pension: A pension is a bounty for the past services rendered to the public. It is mainly
designed to assist the pensioner in providing for his daily wants.

 Earning: That which is earned; reward; that which is gained or merited by labour; the
reward for personal services, whether in money or other goods; the price of services performed;
gains derived from service or labour without the aid of capital. Sometimes the term means more
than the wages of labor."

17. The word 'earning' connotes as to get something in the present, means if services
renders praesenti, obtains some return in 'praesenti'. The pension is not received as a bounty, but as
a privilege, therefore, the services which has already been rendered in the past, cannot be termed as
earning, therefore, a pensioner cannot be treated as an earning person.

18. In the instant case, the spouse of the deceased employee i.e. the mother of the petitioner
is receiving 'pension', which she receives not for her current working status, rather for her past
services. The 'pension' as is held by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Shaukat Husain Beg Mirza
versus State of U.P. and another reported in AIR 1959 All 769, as follows:-

 ""It appears to me that two essentials are necessary in order to constitute a pension:

 (1) it must be a periodical payment, and

 (2) it must be a grant not in respect of any right, privilege, prerequisite or office but on
political considerations or on account of past services or present infirmities or as a compassionate
allowance.

 It has been held to be a periodical payment of money for past services see Municipal
Council, Salem v. Gururajah Rao. It is a bounty for past services rendered to the public or to the
State. It is mainly designed to assist the pensioner in providing his daily wants. It is a mere bounty
or gratuity given by the government in consideration or recognition of meritorious past services
rendered by the pensioner or by some kinsman or ancestor.""
3 All. Prashant Rao Vs. U.O.I. & Ors.
483
19. The fact remains that the spouse of the deceased employee i.e. mother of the petitioner
is not, working employee, but has been retired, therefore, the retired employee, only because of
he/she gets the 'pension', per month, would not be treated/termed as 'working employee'.

20. Further the word 'earning' used under the provision of 'scheme 2014', for compassionate
appointment, does not cover the 'pension' received by a retired employee. The word 'earning'
denotes and contains 'the gain derived from service or labour, without aid of capital' as defined in
the Major Law Lexicon" by P Ramannatha Aiyar.

21. The Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Govind Prakash Verma versus Life Insurance
Corporation of India and Others reported in 2005 10 SCC 289 has also held as follows:-

 "6. In our view, it was wholly irrelevant for the departmental authorities and the learned
Single Judge to take into consideration the amount which was being paid as family pension to the
widow of the deceased (which amount, according to the appellant, has now been reduced to half)
and other amounts paid on account of terminal benefits under the Rules. The scheme of
compassionate appointment is over and above whatever is admissible to the legal representatives
of the deceased employee as benefits of service which one gets on the death of the employee.
Therefore, compassionate appointment cannot be refused on the ground that any member of the
family received the amounts admissible under the Rules. So far as the question of gainful
employment of the elder brother is concerned, we find that it had been given out that he has been
engaged in cultivation. We hardly find that it could be considered as gainful employment if the
family owns a piece of land and one of the members of the family cultivates the field. This statement
is said to have been contradicted when it is said that the elder brother had stated that he works as a
painter. This would not necessarily be a contradiction much less leading to the inference drawn
that he was gainfully employed somewhere as a painter. He might be working in his field and might
casually be getting work as painter also. Nothing has been indicated in the enquiry report as to
where he was employed as a regular painter. The other aspects, on which the officer was required
to make enquiries, have been conveniently omitted and not a whisper is found in the report
submitted by the officer. In the above circumstances, in our view, the orders passed by the High
Court are not sustainable. The respondents have wrongly refused compassionate appointment to
the appellant. The inference of gainful employment of the elder brother could not be acted upon.
The terminal benefits received by the widow and the family pension could not be taken into
account."

22. It is held that the scheme of compassionate appointment, is a benefit admissible to the
legal representative, other than the service benefits payable to the heirs of the deceased employee,
therefore, the same cannot be refused on the ground that the family member is receiving the post
terminal benefits

23. In view of the aforesaid submissions and discussions, I am of the considered opinion
that quoting the provisions of clause 10.1 of the scheme 2014, the status of spouse of the deceased
i.e. mother of the petitioner, has erroneously been treated as 'working and earning' member of the
family.'
484 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
24. Consequently, this court finds merit in the writ petition, therefore, the orders/letters
impugned dated 27.06.2023 and 17.07.2023, are hereby quashed.

25. The respondent-authorities are directed to take a fresh decision on the application of the
petitioner, dated 15-06-2020, within a period of eight weeks, from the date a certified of this order
is produced before them, adhering to the prevalent laws and the observations made hereinabove.

26. The writ petition is allowed accordingly.
----------
(2026) 3 ILRA 484
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 10.03.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J.

Writ A No. 8266 of 2025

Rajendra Pratap Giri ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
(1) Effect of non-consideration of various aspect indicated in Paragraph 7(7) of GO dated 27.09.2019, while
ascertaining the Benchmarks for promotion to the Post of Superintending Engineer.
(2) Applicability of Rule of Purposive Construction.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Promotion - Post of Superintending Engineer (Electrical/Mechanical) -
Benchmark of 80 marks - Ascertainment - Criteria to be followed - Aspects indicated in
Paragraph 7(7) of Government Order dated 27.09.2019 pertaining to capability, merit,
technological knowledge, special entries etc. was not considered while rejecting the candidature
- Validity challenged
Held : A conjoint reading of paragraphs 7(7), 7(11) of Government Order dated 27.09.2019 and paragraph 9
read with Format - 4 of Government Order dated 04.10.2019 leads this Court to an inescapable conclusion
that the conditions indicated in paragraph 7(7) of Government Order dated 27.09.2019 therefore are also
required to be taken into account for purposes of calculation of marks obtained by a candidate for purposes of
allocating the benchmark - Such a course of action having not been followed by the opposite parties renders
the impugned order dated 27.02.2025 vitiated and is therefore quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of
Certiorari. [Para 20 and 26]
(B) Interpretation of statute - Rule of Purposive Construction - Applicability
Held : A statute or a provision must be construed with regard to its intent, which is meaningful and fulfills the
object and purport of such intention. The doctrine also indicates that meaning of words used in a provision is
required to be comprehended to advance the purpose of object and to remedy the mischief, if any, which it
sought to remedy. Context includes reading the statute or the provision as a whole with the surrounding
circumstances so that its intention is in consonance with the policy in order to give it a meaningful object.
[Para 23] (E-1)

Case Law Cited