# Prince Yadav v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 5 ILRA 711
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-05-15
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 6273 of 2025
- **Bench:** Ajit Kumar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/prince-yadav-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54608
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Law
-
Compassionate
Appointment
-
Succession
Certificate
-
Requirement in case of rival claims - Validity of
claim by children from two marriages.

Held: Succession certificate is not mandatorily
required
in
all
cases
of
compassionate
appointment. Where rival claims are set up by
heirs from both the first and second wife,
children born out of even void/illegal marriage
are treated as legitimate under Section 16 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and have equal right
to
be
considered
for
compassionate
appointment. Authority cannot exclude such
children. Impugned order directing petitioner to
obtain succession certificate quashed. Matter
remanded to competent authority to assess rival
claims under Rule 17 of the U.P. Dying-inHarness Rules, 1974 and offer appointment to
the most deserving dependent.

Writ Petition allowed.

## Text

5 All. Prince Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
711
quashed. There shall be no embargo upon
the
petitioner
from
holding
any
administrative responsibility whatsoever.
The penalty of withholding two increments
without cumulative effect is upheld.

31. There shall be no order as to costs.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 711
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.

Writ A No. 6273 of 2025

Prince Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Abhishek Singh, Shashi Bhushan Rai

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Service
Law
-
Compassionate
Appointment
-
Succession
Certificate
-
Requirement in case of rival claims - Validity of
claim by children from two marriages.

Held: Succession certificate is not mandatorily
required
in
all
cases
of
compassionate
appointment. Where rival claims are set up by
heirs from both the first and second wife,
children born out of even void/illegal marriage
are treated as legitimate under Section 16 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and have equal right
to
be
considered
for
compassionate
appointment. Authority cannot exclude such
children. Impugned order directing petitioner to
obtain succession certificate quashed. Matter
remanded to competent authority to assess rival
claims under Rule 17 of the U.P. Dying-inHarness Rules, 1974 and offer appointment to
the most deserving dependent.

Writ Petition allowed.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajit Kumar, J.)

1. Heard Shri Shashi Bhushan Rai,
learned counsel for petitioner and learned
Standing Counsel.

2. By means of this petition filed
under Article 226 of the Constitution
petitioner has challenged the order dated
03.01.2025 whereby he has been directed
to furnish succession certificate so as to set
up a valid claim for compassionate
appointment.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner
submits that in the matter of compassionate
appointment succession certificate is not
mandatorily required as has come to be
held in the judgment of a Co-ordinate
Bench of this Court in Shakeel Khan v.
State of U.P. and three others Writ A No.
7454 of 2020 disposed of on 12.10.2020.

4. Meeting the above submissions,
learned Standing Counsel Shri Rahul
Malviya submits that the judgment would
be applicable only in those cases where
there is uncontested case and not in the
cases where rival claims are set up. It is
contended that in the present case from the
recitals contained in the letter dated
03.01.2025 itself it is very much clear that
the deceased had two wives and there are
children born out of the marriage with the
first wife as well as the second life. In these
circumstances, therefore, when there are
rival claims set up by the heirs of both the
wives, it would be necessarily required to
have succession certificate as it would
validate the claim of one of the heirs to be
offered
compassionate
appointment
dislodging the claims of others.
712 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

5. Having heard learned counsel for
respective parties and having perused the
records I find that both the issues were born
out of the wedlock between the deceased
and the first wife Gulabi Devi and second
wife Savitri Devi and hence they are
ultimately the issues of the deceased
employee and there cannot be any quarrel
to the legal position that the issues born out
of even illegal marriage or void marriage
do have a right of succession. This aspect
has been dealt with by coordinate Bench
of this Court in its judgment in the case of
Shakil Khan (supra) in the following
manner:

"The petitioner was born in
wedlock with the first wife. Admittedly, the
deceased had two wives. The children of
the employee born in wedlock with the
second wife, are also liable to be
considered as members of same family
under dying-in-harness on the same footing
as the petitioner in view of law laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case
of Union of India vs. V.R. Tripathi reported
in (2019) 14 SCC 646. The dispute is
between the children of both the wives. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the
rights of the children born in wedlock from
the second marriage of the deceased
employee, and held as under:

16. The issue essentially is
whether it is open to an employer, who is
amenable to Part III of the Constitution to
deny
the
benefit
of
compassionate
appointment which is available to other
legitimate children. Undoubtedly, while
designing a policy of compassionate
appointment, the State can prescribe the
terms on which it can be granted. However,
it is not open to the State, while making the
scheme or rules, to lay down a condition
which is inconsistent with Article 14 of the
Constitution.
The
purpose
of
compassionate appointment is to prevent
destitution and penury in the family of a
deceased employee. The effect of the
circular
is
that
irrespective
of
the
destitution which a child born from a
second marriage of a deceased employee
may face, compassionate appointment is to
be refused unless the second marriage was
contracted with the permission of the
administration. Once Section 16 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 regards a child
born from a marriage entered into while the
earlier marriage is subsisting to be
legitimate, it would not be open to the
State, consistent with Article 14 to exclude
such a child from seeking the benefit of
compassionate
appointment.
Such
a
condition of exclusion is arbitrary and ultra
vires.

17.
Even
if
the
narrow
classification test is adopted, the circular of
the Railway Board creates two categories
between one class of legitimate children.
Though the law has regarded a child born
from a second marriage as legitimate, a
child born from the first marriage of a
deceased employee is alone made entitled
to
the
benefit
of
compassionate
appointment.
The
salutary
purpose
underlying the grant of compassionate
appointment,
which
is
to
prevent
destitution and penury in the family of a
deceased employee requires that any
stipulation or condition which is imposed
must have or bear a reasonable nexus to
the object which is sought to be achieved.
The learned Additional Solicitor General
has urged that it is open to the State, as
part of its policy of discouraging bigamy to
restrict the benefit of compassionate
appointment, only to the spouse and
children of the first marriage and to deny
it to the spouse of a subsequent marriage
5 All. M/s Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
713
and the children. We are here concerned
with the exclusion of children born from a
second marriage. By excluding a class of
beneficiaries who have been deemed
legitimate by the operation of law, the
condition imposed is disproportionate to
the object sought to be achieved. Having
regard to the purpose and object of a
scheme of compassionate appointment,
once the law has treated such children as
legitimate, it would be impermissible to
exclude them from being considered for
compassionate appointment. Children do
not choose their parents. To deny
compassionate appointment though the
law treats a child of a void marriage as
legitimate is deeply offensive to their
dignity
and
is
offensive
to
the
constitutional
guarantee
against
discrimination.

The order dated 12.6.2020 passed
by respondent no.2 is hereby quashed in so
far as it directs the petitioner to obtain
succession certificate for consideration of
his
claim
for
appointment
on
compassionate grounds. " (emphasis added)

6. The Supreme Court judgment that
has been considered by the Co-ordinate
Bench deals with the situation where the
rivals claims were set up by more than one
heirs of the deceased employee and the
issue was as to the legitimacy of their
respective claims. The Court observed that
compassionate appointment cannot be
denied to a child even if born out of void
marriage. The said judgment has been
followed by another co-ordinate Bench in
the case of Prachi Tripathi v. State of U.P.
through Principal Secretary Appointment
and two others Writ A No. 1706 of 2024.

7. Learned Standing Counsel could not
dispute that the children born out of void
marriage are also having ligitimate claim to
the property, succession or heirship of their
parents.

8. In these circumstances, therefore,
the order passed by the authority namely
the Superintendent of Police, Mirzapur
dated 03.01.2025 is rendered unsustainable
the order is accordingly quashed.

9. The competent authority in the
matter namely, Superintendent of Police,
Mirzapur is directed to consider the rival
claims set up by the heirs of the deceased
employee Shiv Shankar Singh giving them
opportunity of hearing under Rule l7 of
U.P. Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. The
competent authority will evaluate and
assess the rival claims and will offer
appointment to the most deserving and
suitable person who was dependent-heir of
deceased employee Shiv Shankar Singh at
the time of his death.

10. Appropriate reason and speaking
order shall accordingly be passed within a
maximum period of two months from the
production of certified copy of this order.

11. Petition thus, stands allowed with
no order as to cost.
----------
(2025) 5 ILRA 713
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 29.05.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SHEKHAR B SARAF, J.
THE HON'BLE VIPIN CHANDRA DIXIT, J.

Writ Tax No. 1603 of 2024

M/s Patanjali Ayurved Ltd. ...Petitioner
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. ...Respondents