# Satya Prakash v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 8 ILRA 277
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-08-05
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 3071 of 2023
- **Bench:** Rajesh Singh Chauhan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/satya-prakash-v-state-of-u-p-ors-52313
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

A. Service Law-Constitution of India, 1950Article 226-Compassionate AppointmentDependents under dying in Harness Rules,
1974-Eligibility-Separated spouse Vs Sibling
dependency-the two petitioners deceased
brother and estranged wife (divorcee) both
sought
compassionate
appointments
following the death of the deceased who
was
employed
in
the
Public
Works
Department-deceased younger brother was
dependent on his late brother, along with
their parents and two unmarried sisters
while his brother wife had separated from
the deceased, filed for divorce and accepted
financial settlement before his death but
later she changed her mind and claimed a
compassionate
appointment-Held,
the
estranged wife was not dependent on the
deceased at the time of his death, she is not
entitled-deceased younger brother being
unmarried, unemployed and living with the
family was held to be the rightful claimant
for
compassionate
appointmentCompassionate
appointment
under
the
dying in Harness Rules is meant for the
dependents
of
the
deceased,
and
dependency, not just marital status, is the
key consideration- The fact that someone is
a spouse or family member is insufficient to
claim compassionate appointment , the
claimant
must
prove
that
they
were
genuinely dependent on the deceased at the
time of their death-Hence,deceased younger
brother
petition
allowed
with
the
directions.(Para 1 to 25)

The petition is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

8 All. Satya Prakash Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
277

31. In the present case, the Screening
Committee has recommended compulsory
retirement of the petitioner keeping in view
his overall service record for the period
2009-10 to 2018-19, which has been
referred to in the earlier part of this
judgment. There appears to be no illegality
committed in making a recommendation
for the petitioner's compulsory retirement
and in acceptance of the recommendation
by the State Government by passing an
order
for
the
petitioner's
premature
compulsory retirement.

32. The writ petition lacks merit and
the same is hereby dismissed.
----------
(2024) 8 ILRA 277
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 05.08.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Writ-A No. 3071 of 2023
With
Writ-A No. 6248 of 2023

Satya Prakash ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Megha Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Girjesh Kumar Mishra, Pawan
Kumar Nigam, Ram Babu Singh

A. Service Law-Constitution of India, 1950Article 226-Compassionate AppointmentDependents under dying in Harness Rules,
1974-Eligibility-Separated spouse Vs Sibling
dependency-the two petitioners deceased
brother and estranged wife (divorcee) both
sought
compassionate
appointments
following the death of the deceased who
was
employed
in
the
Public
Works
Department-deceased younger brother was
dependent on his late brother, along with
their parents and two unmarried sisters
while his brother wife had separated from
the deceased, filed for divorce and accepted
financial settlement before his death but
later she changed her mind and claimed a
compassionate
appointment-Held,
the
estranged wife was not dependent on the
deceased at the time of his death, she is not
entitled-deceased younger brother being
unmarried, unemployed and living with the
family was held to be the rightful claimant
for
compassionate
appointmentCompassionate
appointment
under
the
dying in Harness Rules is meant for the
dependents
of
the
deceased,
and
dependency, not just marital status, is the
key consideration- The fact that someone is
a spouse or family member is insufficient to
claim compassionate appointment , the
claimant
must
prove
that
they
were
genuinely dependent on the deceased at the
time of their death-Hence,deceased younger
brother
petition
allowed
with
the
directions.(Para 1 to 25)

The petition is allowed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Parbatbhai Aahir Vs St. of Guj.(2017) 9 SCC
641

2. Gian Singh Vs St. of Punj.(2012) 10 SCC 303
St. of M.P. Vs Laxmi Narayan (2019) 5 SCC 688

3. Mumtaz Yunus Mulani Vs St. of Mah.& Ors

4. The Dir. of Treasuries of Kar. & anr.. Vs
Somyashree

5. Mudita Vs St. of U.P. & anr.. SPLA No. 758 of
2015

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Singh
Chauhan, J.)

(I.A. No. 3 of 2023 in re: Writ-A No.
6248 of 2023)
278 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Heard.

On due consideration, the application
for impleadment is allowed.

Let the necessary impleadment be
carried out during the course of the day.

(I.A. No. 6 of 2024 in re: Writ-A No.
3071 of 2023)

Heard.

On due consideration, the application
for impleadment is allowed.

Let the necessary impleadment be
carried out during the course of the day.

(Order on the Writ Petitions)

1. Heard Ms. Megha Pandey, learned
counsel for the writ petitioner in re: Satya
Prakash (supra), Shri R.P.S. Chauhan,
learned Additional C.S.C. for the Staterespondents and Shri Pawan Kumar Nigam,
learned counsel for newly impleaded
opposite party no. 4 i.e., Smt. Rinki.

2. Shri Nigam has argued the second
writ petition in re: Smt. Rinki (supra) on
behalf of the petitioner, Shri R.P.S.
Chauhan, learned Additional C.S.C. and
Smt. Megha Pandey, learned counsel for
newly impleaded opposite party no. 4 i.e.,
Satya Prakash.

3. In the writ petition in re: Satya
Prakash (supra), the following prayer has
been sought which reads as under:

"1. Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of Mandamus commanding the
respondents
to
consider
and
grant
compassionate appointment to the petitioner
under the Scheme of U.P. Recruitment of
Dependents of Government Servants (Dying in
Harness) Rules, 1974 as amended up-to- date.

2. Issue any other suitable order or
direction, in the nature to which this Hon'ble
Court deems just and proper in favour of the
petitioner.

3. Allow the writ petition with cost."

4. In writ petition in re: Smt. Rinki
(supra), the following prayer has been sought
which reads as under:

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction
in the nature of Mandamus directing the
opposite parties to make appointment of the
petitioner on suitable post in the office of
opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 on the basis of on
compensate ground under dying in harness
Rule 1972.

(ii) Issue any other Writ, Order or
direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem
fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.

(iii) Award the cost of the Petition in
favor of the petitioner."

5. At the very outset, learned Standing
Counsel has drawn attention of this Court
towards the letter dated 30.10.2023 passed
by the Executive Engineer (Indo-Nepal
Border),
Public
Works
Department,
Lakhimpur Kheri, U.P. (hereinafter referred
to as 'opposite party no.3' in short)
addressing to Smt. Rinki apprising that
since both the aforesaid writ petitions are
pending before this Hon'ble High Court,
therefore, any decision in the present matter
may be taken after final disposal of the
aforesaid writ petitions. The aforesaid letter
is taken on record.

6. Learned counsel for the parties in
both the writ petitions have agreed to club
the writ petitions together and decide the
same by the common order and, therefore,
8 All. Satya Prakash Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
279
both the writ petitions are being decided
finally by the common order.

7. Ms. Megha Pandey has precisely
apprised the brief facts of the case that the
petitioner Satya Prakash was the real
younger brother of the deceased employee
namely, Late Chandra Prakash who was
serving on the post of Personal Assistant in
the Public Works Department under the
opposite party no.3 and he died in harness
on 27.8.2022. At the time of the death of
his brother, Late Chandra Prakash, his old
aged parents and the petitioner Satya
Prakash were dependent upon him. The
petitioner Satya Prakash is unmarried and
unemployed. Besides the petitioner Satya
Prakash, there are three sisters of Late
Chandra Prakash, out of them one has got
married and two sisters are still unmarried,
therefore, in the entire family, there were
total five persons including the petitioner
Satya Prakash were dependent upon the
deceased employee Late Chandra Prakash.

8. Ms. Megha Pandey has further
stated that the petitioner Satya Prakash is a
graduate and is eligible for the benefit of
the compassionate appointment under the
U.P.
Recruitment
of
Dependants
of
Government Servant (Dying in Harness)
Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as
"Dying in Harness Rules, 1974") as he
fulfills all required qualifications to get the
benefit of the compassionate appointment.

9. Ms. Megha Pandey has drawn
attention
of
the
Court
towards
the
supplementary
affidavit
filed
on
27.07.2023 enclosing therewith a copy of
the interim settlement agreement entered
into between Late Chandra Prakash and his
wife, Smt. Rinki. The perusal thereof
reveals that though Late Chandra Prakash
was married to Smt. Rinki on 15.12.2013
but their matrimonial relationship was not
well, therefore, they were living separately
and Smt. Rinki Pandey has filed some
cases against him.

10. She has further stated that a writ
bearing Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.
16472 of 2020 was filed by the said Late
Chandra Prakash and the matter was
referred to the Mediation & Conciliation
Centre of the Court at Allahabad on
05.01.2021. The interim settlement was
entered into between the parties on
20.04.2022, on which date Late Chandra
Prakash produced the demand draft of Rs.
1,50,000/- dated 11.4.2022 in favour of his
wife, Smt. Rinki Pandey before the
Mediation Centre and also produced a
demand draft of Rs. 30,000/- dated
02.05.2022 and both the demand drafts
(total Rs. 1,80,000/-) have been handed
over to the wife, i.e., Smt. Rinki Pandey
who acknowledged the receipt of the same.
Thereafter, the parties have filed mutual
divorce petition before the court concerned
on the condition that the husband Chandra
Prakash shall pay Rs. 3,60,000/- against
one time settlement and the aforesaid
amount would be given to Smt. Rinki
Pandey in two installments. That amount
was consisting the streedhan also. The
mediators were informed that the parties
filed mutual divorce petition bearing No.
767 of 2022, under Section 13-B of the
Hindu Marriage Act before the Principal
Judge, Family Court, Allahabad. She has
further submitted that during the pendency
of the mediation proceedings, the husband
Chandra Prakash died on 27.08.2022,
therefore, the remaining amount of Rs.
1,80,000/- could not be paid.

11. Though Smt. Rinki, as per the
learned counsel, was willing to take divorce
from her husband after receiving the
280 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
aforesaid amount of Rs. 1,80,000/- but after
the death of her husband, Chandra Prakash
on 27.08.2022, she changed her mind
saying that she does not want to receive
any money under the settlement but wishes
to
obtain
compassionate
appointment
against the death of her estranged husband,
Chandra Prakash.

12. Notably, the FIR bearing Case
Crime No. 133 of 2020, under section
498A, 323, 504, 506 IPC & Section 3 /4 of
the Dowry Prohibition Act, Police Station-
Mahila Thana, District- Prayagraj was
lodged by Smt. Rinki, wherein the chargesheet has been filed against all family
members of Chandra Prakash (since
deceased). Hence, the Application U/S 482
No. 36791 of 2022 (Vidhya Devi and 7
others vs. State of U.P. and another) has
been filed before this Court at Allahabad,
wherein the interim orders have been
granted. Two orders dated 10.02.2023 and
24.02.2023 thereof are relevant, therefore,
those orders are being reproduced herein
under respectively:

"1. Upon hearing at some length,
it transpires, the matter had earlier been
referred
to
mediation
on
5.1.2021.
Settlement was reached between the
opposite party no. 2 and Chandra Prakash
(son of applicant nos. 1 and 2) with respect
to matrimonial discord between those
parties.

2. Perusal of the settlement
reached, reveals, those parties had agreed
to dissolve their marriage. Sri Chandra
Prakash was required to pay Rs. 3,60,000/-
to the opposite party no. 2. Against that,
Rs. 1,80,000/- was paid out to her during
mediation proceedings. The balance was to
be paid upon successful completion of
divorce proceedings.

3. During the pendency of the
divorce proceedings, the said Chandra
Prakash died on 27.08.2022. Thereafter,
the opposite party no. 2 appears to have
changed her mind such that she does not
want to receive any money under the
settlement
but
wishes
to
obtain
compassionate appointment against the
death of her estranged husband, Chandra
Prakash. While the Court may not make
any opinion as to the conduct offered by the
opposite party no. 2, (as she continued to
live separately from the present applicants
and
yet
claims
entitlement
to
compassionate appointment), plainly she
may not resile from the settlement reached.

4.
Accordingly,
put
up
on
24.2.2023 in top ten cases.

5. On that date, the opposite
party no. 2 may show cause why the
present application may not be allowed in
terms of the settlement dated 4.5.2022
against Rs. 1,80,000/- already paid to her.

6. Interim order, granted earlier,
is extended till the next date of listing.

7. It is also left open to the
opposite party no. 2 to reconsider her
position and file appropriate affidavit with
respect to balance amount under the
settlement deed.
XXX

"Heard learned counsel for the
applicants, Sri Babu Lal Ram, learned
counsel for the opposite party no.2 and
learned A.G.A. for the State.

Learned counsel for the opposite
party no.2 has filed an affidavit today in
Court, which is taken on record.

This application under Section
482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for quashing the
charge sheet dated 23.12.2020 as well as
summoning order dated 1.9.2022 issued
against the applicants in Case No.34 of
2021, State Vs. Chandra Prakash and
others, arising out of Case Crime No.133 of
8 All. Satya Prakash Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
281
2020, under Sections 498A, 323, 504, 506
I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station
Mahila Thana, District Prayagraj pending
in the court of Additional Sessions Judge
(J.D.), Allahabad.

It is submitted by learned counsel
for the applicants that a settlement was
arrived at before the Mediation Centre of
this Court on 4.5.2022 between the
husband and wife. A sum of Rs.3,60,000/-
was required to be paid by the applicants
to the opposite party no.2, out of which, a
sum of Rs.1,80,000/- was paid earlier and
now today a demand draft of Rs.1,80,000/-
has been handed over to the learned
counsel for the opposite party no.2 by the
learned counsel for the applicants.

He submits that during pendency
of the criminal proceedings, the husband
has died and now the family members of
the husband of opposite party no.2 are
facing the criminal proceedings.

Learned counsel for the opposite
party no.2 submits that even though the
husband has died, the opposite party will
honour the settlement and has received the
remaining amount of Rs.1,80,000/- by
demand draft today. He submits that earlier
also the husband has paid a sum of
Rs.1,80,000/-. Therefore, the complete
amount as per the settlement dated
4.5.2022 before the Mediation Centre of
this Court has been received by the
opposite party no.2. He further submits that
now the opposite party no.2 has no
objection in case the criminal proceedings
are put to end and the present criminal
proceedings were quashed. He has also
filed an affidavit to this effect before this
Court today.

Learned
counsel
for
the
applicants submitted that the compromise
has already been entered between the
parties on 4.5.2022 before Allahabad High
Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre,
therefore, the present case be finally
decided.

Learned counsel for opposite
party no.2 has not disputed the facts as
stated
by
learned
counsel
for
the
applicants. He further contended that
opposite party no.2 does not want to
proceed with the criminal case against the
applicants and the same may be quashed.

Learned AGA does not dispute
the fact that parties have entered into
settlement. It is further submitted that he
would have no objection in case criminal
proceedings are put to an end. He further
submits that in view of settlement there is
virtually no chance of any conviction being
recorded in the criminal proceedings.

Having examined the matter in its
totality, this Court is of the view that the
criminal proceedings in the present case
had essentially been an outcome of a
matrimonial dispute; and there are no such
over bearing circumstances for which the
applicants ought to be prosecuted even
after the parties has entered into a
settlement. Needless to observe that with
the present stand of the parties in terms of
their settlement, there is practically no
chance of recording conviction, even if the
case under the F.I.R. in question is put to
trial. In other words, entire exercise of trial
would only be an exercise in futility. On the
contrary, looking to the nature of dispute
and the fact that the disputants, being the
close relatives, have compromised and
want to proceed peacefully ahead, it would
be in the interest of justice that criminal
proceedings in question are quashed.

It would be unfair or contrary to
the interest of justice to continue with the
criminal proceeding or continuation of the
criminal proceeding would tantamount to
abuse of process of law despite settlement
and compromise between the victim and the
wrongdoer and to secure the ends of
282 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
justice, it is appropriate that the criminal
case is put to an end.

In view of the fact that the parties
do not want to pursue the case any further
as stated by them and the fact that matter
has been mutually settled between the
parties in view of the compromise arrived
at, no useful purpose would be served in
proceeding with the matter further.

Thus, in view of the well settled
principles of law as laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Parbatbhai Aahir
Vs. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641,
Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 10
SCC 303 and State of M.P. Vs. Laxmi
Narayan,
(2019)
5
SCC
688,
the
proceedings of the aforesaid case is hereby
quashed.

The present application under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. is, accordingly,
allowed."

13. By means of the aforesaid order
dated 10.02.2023, this Court called the
opposite party No.2, Smt. Rinki to show
cause why the present application may not
be allowed in terms of the settlement dated
04.05.2022 against Rs. 1,80,000/- already
paid to her. Further, by means of the order
dated 24.02.2023 (supra), the aforesaid
Application U/S 482 has been allowed by
this Court considering the fact that the
demand draft of Rs. 1,80,000/- has been
handed over to the opposite party no. 2 and
also considering the affidavit of Smt. Rinki
wherein she has stated that she is not
willing to contest the aforesaid case,
therefore, any appropriate order may be
passed on the basis of compromise
settlement entered into between the parties.
In such affidavit, she had admitted that
pursuant to the settlement agreement, she
has received the entire amount. The
aforesaid affidavit is on record along with
the supplementary affidavit which goes to
show that the in her affidavit, Smt. Rinki
has stated herself as Rinki, D/o- Surendra
Kumar and has not stated as wife of Late
Chandra Prakash. This Court by means of
the aforesaid order dated 24.02.2023,
quashed the entire criminal proceedings in
view of the settled proposition of the law
laid down in catena of cases referring those
cases.

14. Therefore, Ms. Megha Pandey has
stated when Smt. Rinki was not living with
her late husband for quite long time and
pursuant to the settlement agreement, she
received the entire amount and filed an
affidavit before this Court saying that she is
satisfied with the compromise. Further, she
is not living with the family members of
her late husband, then she may not claim
the compassionate appointment under the
Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.

15. In support of her contentions, Ms.
Megha Pandey has placed reliance on the
judgement and order dated 14.03.2008
passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in re:
Mumtaz Yunus Mulani vs. State of
Maharashtra & others; the judgement
and order dated 13.09.2021 passed by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in re: The Director of
Treasuries in Karnataka & Another vs.
Somyashree as well as the judgement of
the Division Bench of this Court vide
judgement and order dated 22.11.2016 in
re: Special Appeal No. 758 of 2015
(Mudita vs. State of U.P. and another)
and
has
submitted
that
the
main
consideration to provide the compassionate
appointment would be the 'factum of
dependency' of the family of the deceased
employee, not the relation and in the
present case, the entire family is dependent
upon the petitioner Satya Prakash, who is
the real younger brother of the deceased
employee, is unmarried and unemployed
8 All. Satya Prakash Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
283
and the entire family of his elder brother
would be benefited, if he is given any
appropriate appointment under Dying in
Harness Rules, 1974.

16. The relevant para nos. 7, 8 and 8.1
of the judgement in re: The Director of
Treasuries in Karnataka (supra) are
being reproduced herein under:

" 7. While considering the
submissions made on behalf of the rival
parties a recent decision of this Court in
the case of N.C. Santhosh (Supra) on the
appointment on compassionate ground is
required
to
be
referred
to.
After
considering catena of decisions of this
Court on appointment on compassionate
grounds it is observed and held that
appointment to any public post in the
service of the State has to be made on the
basis of principles in accordance with
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of
India and the compassionate appointment
is an exception to the general rule. It is
further observed that the dependent of the
deceased Government employee are made
eligible by virtue of the policy on
compassionate appointment and they must
fulfill the norms laid down by the State's
policy. It is further observed and held that
the norms prevailing on the date of the
consideration of the application should be
the basis for consideration of claim of
compassionate appointment. A dependent
of a government employee, in the absence
of any vested right accruing on the death of
the government employee, can only demand
consideration of his/her application. It is
further observed he/she is, however,
entitled
to
seek
consideration
in
accordance with the norms as applicable
on the day of death of the Government
employee. The law laid down by this Court
in the aforesaid decision on grant of
appointment on compassionate ground can
be summarized as under:

(i)
that
the
compassionate
appointment is an exception to the general
rule;

(ii) that no aspirant has a right to
compassionate appointment;

(iii) the appointment to any
public post in the service of the State has to
be made on the basis of the principle in
accordance with Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India;

(iv)
appointment
on
compassionate ground can be made only
on fulfilling the norms laid down by the
State's policy and/or satisfaction of the
eligibility criteria as per the policy;

(v) the norms prevailing on the
date of the consideration of the application
should be the basis for consideration of
claim for compassionate appointment.

8. Applying the law laid down by
this Court in the aforesaid decision to the
facts of the case on hand, we are of the
opinion that as such the High Court has
gone beyond Rule 2 and Rule 3 of the
Rules, 1996 by directing the appellants to
consider the application of the respondent
herein for appointment on compassionate
ground as 'divorced daughter'. Rule 2 and
Rule 3 of the Rules, 1996 read as under:

"2. Definitions: (1) In these
rules,
unless
the
context
otherwise
requires:-

(a) "Dependent of a deceased
Government servant" means-

(i) in the case of deceased male
Government servant, his widow, son,
(unmarried
daughter
and
widowed
daughter) who were dependent upon him;
and were living with him; and

(ii) in the case of a deceased
female Government servant, her widower,
son, (unmarried daughter and widowed
284 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
daughter) who were dependent upon her
and were living with her;

(iii) 'family' in relation to a
deceased Government servant means his or
her spouse and their son, (unmarried
daughter and widowed daughter) who were
living with him.

(2) Words and expressions used
but not defined shall have the same
meaning assigned to them in the Karnataka
Civil Services (General Recruitment) Rules,
1977."

6. The eligibility on the death of a
female employee is in terms of Rule 3(2)(ii)
of
the
Karnataka
Civil
Services
(Appointment on Compassionate Grounds)
Rules, 1996, which reads as follows:

Rule 3(2)(ii): '(ii) in the case of
the deceased female Government servant;

(a) a son;

(b) an unmarried daughter, if the
son is not eligible or for any valid reason
he is not willing to accept the appointment;

(c) the widower, if the son and
daughter are not eligible or for any valid
reason they are not willing to accept the
appointment.

(d) a widowed daughter, if the
widower, son and unmarried daughter are
not eligible or for any valid reason they are
not willing to accept the appointment.

3. xxx

4 xxx"

8.1 From the aforesaid rules it
can be seen that only 'unmarried daughter'
and
'widowed
daughter'
who
were
dependent upon the deceased female
Government servant at the time of her
death and living with her can be said to be
'dependent' of a deceased Government
servant and that 'an unmarried daughter'
and 'widowed daughter' only can be said
to
be
eligible
for
appointment
on
compassionate ground in the case of death
of the female Government servant. Rule 2
and Rule 3 reproduced hereinabove do not
include 'divorced daughter' as eligible for
appointment on compassionate ground and
even
as
'dependent'.
As
observed
hereinabove and even as held by this Court
in the case of N.C. Santhosh (Supra), the
norms
prevailing
on
the
date
of
consideration of the application should be
the basis of consideration of claim for
compassionate appointment. The word
'divorced daughter' has been added
subsequently
by
Amendment,
2021.
Therefore, at the relevant time when the
deceased employee died and when the
original writ petitioner - respondent herein
made an application for appointment on
compassionate
ground
the
'divorced
daughter' were not eligible for appointment
on
compassionate
ground
and
the
'divorced daughter' was not within the
definition of 'dependent.' 8.2 Apart from
the above one additional aspect needs to be
noticed, which the High Court has failed to
consider. It is to be noted that the deceased
employee
died
on
25.03.2012.
The
respondent herein - original writ petitioner
at that time was a married daughter. Her
marriage was subsisting on the date of the
death of the deceased i.e. on 25.03.2012.
Immediately on the death of the deceased
employee, the respondent initiated the
divorced proceedings under Section 13B of
the
Hindu
Marriage
Act,
1955
on
12.09.2012 for decree of divorce by mutual
consent. By Judgment dated 20.03.2013,
the Learned Principal Civil Judge, Mandya
granted the decree of divorce by mutual
consent. That immediately on the very next
day i.e. on 21.03.2013, the respondent
herein on the basis of the decree of divorce
by mutual consent applied for appointment
on compassionate ground. The aforesaid
chronology of dates and events would
suggest that only for the purpose of getting
appointment on compassionate ground the
8 All. Satya Prakash Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
285
decree of divorce by mutual consent has
been obtained. Otherwise, as a married
daughter she was not entitled to the
appointment on compassionate ground.
Therefore, looking to the aforesaid facts
and circumstances of the case, otherwise
also the High Court ought not to have
directed the appellants to consider the
application of the respondent herein for
appointment on compassionate ground as
'divorced daughter'. This is one additional
ground to reject the application of the
respondent
for
appointment
on
compassionate ground. 8.3 Even otherwise,
it is required to be noted that at the time
when the deceased employee died on
25.03.2012 the marriage between the
respondent
and
her
husband
was
subsisting. Therefore, at the time when the
deceased employee died she was a married
daughter and therefore, also cannot be said
to be 'dependent' as defined under Rule 2
of the Rules 1996. Therefore, even if it is
assumed that the 'divorced daughter' may
fall in the same class of 'unmarried
daughter' and 'widowed daughter' in that
case also the date on which the deceased
employee died she - respondent herein was
not the 'divorced daughter' as she obtained
the divorce by mutual consent subsequent
to the death of the deceased employee.
Therefore, also the respondent shall not be
eligible
for
the
appointment
on
compassionate ground on the death of her
mother and deceased employee."

17. Ms. Megha Pandey has stated that
in view of the definition of the dependent
of the deceased government servant, it is
the petitioner Satya Prakash, not Smt. Rinki
(supra) who has been living separately for
quite long time and would not be able to
look after the family members of the
deceased employee, therefore, instead of
Smt. Rinki (supra), the petitioner Satya
Prakash may be given any suitable
appointment as per his qualification under
Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.

18. Shri Pawan Kumar Nigam has,
however, tried to justify the claim of the
petitioner Smt. Rinki by submitting that she
is the wife of the deceased employee and
decree of divorce could not be granted to
the parties, therefore, for all practical and
legal purposes, she would be treated as
wife of the late employee and she may be
given an appointment under Dying in
Harness Rules, 1974.

19. On being confronted Shri Nigam
on the point that since Smt. Rinki (supra)
has been living separately from her
husband; she lodged the FIR against him
and his entire family; the issue went in
litigation before this Court; the issue
referred to the Mediation Centre; pursuant
to the interim settlement after receiving the
amount of Rs. 1,80,000/-, she filed the
mutual divorce petition before the Family
Court concerned; in a petition filed against
the charge-sheet, she filed an affidavit
saying that she does not wish to contest that
case as she has received the entire amount
in terms of the settlement agreement; in her
affidavit, she has not stated herself as a
wife of the late employee, rather has
indicated her father's name, then as to how
she would be able to look after the family
members of the late employee, who were
dependent upon the late employee, he could
not defend the aforesaid facts, rather he has
admitted all the aforesaid facts and
circumstances.

20.

Therefore,
the
aforesaid
submissions of Shri Pawan Kumar Nigam
may be treated as his submissions in the
petition of Smt. Rinki (supra) and the
submissions of Ms. Megha Pandey may be
286 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
considered as her submissions on behalf of
the petitioner Satya Prakash who is
opposite party no. 4 in the writ petition of
Smt. Rinki (supra).

21. Shri R.P.S. Chauhan learned
Additional C.S.C. has fairly stated that the
authority concerned has given undertaking
that he will pass appropriate orders in
compliance of the order being passed by
this Court in the aforesaid writ petitions as
the letter to this effect dated 03.10.2023 has
already been issued to Smt. Rinki (supra).

22. Having heard learned counsel for
the parties and having perused the material
available on the record as well as the
decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in re:
Mumtaz Yunus Mulani (supra), The
Director of Treasuries in Karnataka
(supra) and the judgement of the Division
Bench of this Court in re: Mudita (supra),
I am of the considered opinion that the
Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 is a
beneficial legislation and any suitable
appointment on the compassionate ground
under the said Rules is provided to a person
who would be able to look after the entire
family of the deceased employee as the
deceased employee was the only bread
earner of the family. The purpose of
providing compassionate appointment to
any suitable person under Dying in Harness
Rules, 1974 is that the person would look
after the entire family who was dependent
upon the late employee and the specific
undertaking to that effect would be taken
from such employee to the effect that he
will look after the entire family of the late
employee in a same manner the late
employee was looking after them.

23. In view of the aforesaid facts and
circumstances, it is clear that the relation of
Smt. Rinki was not cordial with her
husband Late Chandra Prakash (since
deceased) from the very beginning and she
lodged the FIR against him and his entire
family having lived separately and pursuant
to the orders being passed by this Court,
she
participated
in
the
mediation
proceedings and pursuant to settlement
agreement entered into between the parties,
she received a sum of Rs. 3,60,000/- as
agreed by the parties and, thereafter filed
an affidavit before this court saying that she
does not want to pursue the criminal
proceedings against the family members of
her husband and in such affidavit, even she
has not indicated herself as wife of the late
employee, rather has stated the name of her
father giving the address of her father as
place of her living, therefore, she may not
be provided a suitable appointment under
Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 for the
reason that she would not be able to look
after the family members of her late
husband. To the contrary, the younger
brother of late employee namely, Satya
Prakash
(supra)
is
bachelor
and
unemployed graduate and has been living
with the family of the late employee and
looking after them by his meagre means,
therefore, he would be the appropriate
person to whom any suitable appointment
may be offered under Dying in Harness
Rules, 1974.

24. In view of the facts and
circumstances of the issue in question, the
compassionate appointment under Dying in
Harness Rules, 1974 should be offered to
Satya Prakash (supra) not to Smt. Rinki
(supra).

25. Accordingly, the writ petition
with regard to the petitioner Satya
Prakash is allowed and the writ petition
with regard to the petitioner Smt. Rinki is
dismissed.
8 All. Smt. Reena Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
287

26. The opposite party no. 4 is
directed to pass an appropriate order
providing a suitable appointment under
Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 to Satya
Prakash
(supra)
with
expedition,
preferably, within a period of six weeks
from the date of production of certified
copy of this order so that he could look
after the entire family of the deceased
employee namely, Chandra Prakash.

27. No order as to costs.
----------
(2024) 8 ILRA 287
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 02.08.2024

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Writ-A No. 3796 of 2024

Smt. Reena Srivastava ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Ashutosh Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Service Law-Constitution of India,1950Article
226-The
petitioner,
a
Head
Assistant in the Tourism Department
challenged the rejection of her promotion
to the post of Administrative Officer-The
denial was based on the entries in her
Annual Confidential Report (ACR) for the
past five years, which were deemed
insufficient for promotion as they were
classified as "Good" or "Satisfactory"
instead of "Very Good" or "Outstanding"-
The
petitioner
contended
that
these
entries were never communicated to her-
The court referring the Supreme Court
precedents such as Dev Dutt Vs U.O.I. &
Rukshana Shaheen Khan Vs U.O.I. held
that uncommunicated ACR entries cannot
be used to deny promotion as it violates
Article 14 of the Constitution- any adverse
or
below-benchmark
entry
must
be
communicated to the employee in a timely
manner
to
ensure
transparency
and
fairness in the employment decision-Thus,
the Court quashed the impugned order
directing the Director general of Tourism
to make a fresh decision.

The petition is allowed. (E-6)

List of cases cited:

1. Dev Dutt Vs U.O.I. & ors.(2008) 8 SCC 725

2. Rukshana Shaheen Khan Vs U.O.I.(2018)AIR
SC (Supp) 1252

3. R.K Jibanlata Devi Vs H.C. of Manipur thru its
Reg. Gen.(2023) AIR SC 1190

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Singh
Chauhan, J.)

1. Heard Sri Ashutosh Srivastava,
learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri
Sudhir Kumar Singh, learned Standing
Counsel for the State.

2. At the very outset, learned counsel
for the petitioner has requested that he may
be permitted to delete the name of opposite
party No.5 from the array of opposite parties.

3. Considering the aforesaid request,
learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted
to delete the name of opposite party No.5
from array of the opposite parties, during the
course of day.

4. By means of this writ petition, the
petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

"(i) to issue a writ, order or
direction in the nature of certiorari