# [ See also Ram Pratap v. State of

- **Citation:** (2021) 11 ILRA 992
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-10-21
- **Bench:** Saral Srivastava
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/see-also-ram-pratap-v-state-of-46744
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

A. Service Law - Compassionate Appointment -
Uttar Pradesh Recognized Basic Schools (Junior
High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of
Service of Ministerial Staff and Group 'D'
Employees), Rules, 1984 - Rule 6 - U.P.
Recruitment of Dependents of Government
Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.

The object of compassionate appointment is to
provide immediate relief to the bereaved family
so that the bereaved family may get over the
financial hardship suffered by them on account
of the untimely death of the sole bread earner
of the family. It is settled in law that the
compassionate appointment is an exception to
the general rule and no aspirant has a right to
the compassionate appointment. Thus, the
petitioner
cannot
claim
an
appointment
on
compassionate grounds as a matter of right, and it
can be given to the petitioner if he fulfills the norms
prescribed
for
the
grant
of
compassionate
appointment. (Para 15, 16)

B. Uttar Pradesh Recognized Basic Schools
(Junior
High
Schools)(Recruitment
and
Conditions of Service of Ministerial Staff and
Group 'D' Employees), Rules, 1984: Rule 6 - The
minimum age for recruitment on Class-III Posts is 18
years. The petitioner did not submit any application
as soon as he became eligible for consideration for
appointment on the compassionate ground rather he
applied after six years, at the age of 24 years on
4.11.2019. (Para 14)

C.
U.P.
Recruitment
of
Dependants
of
Government Servants Dying-in-Harness, Rules,
1974 - (a) Under the Scheme for compassionate
appointment, the Rule does not envisage any such
contingency where the widow of the deceased
employee submitted an application for consideration
of appointment on compassionate ground, and
thereafter, she sat idle and did not take any legal
recourse to assert her claim for appointment, rather
she waited for her son to become eligible, thereafter,
she withdrew her application and requested for the
appointment of her son in her place.
The father of the petitioner had died in the year 2006.
The family survived for more than 1

## Text

992 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
been extended all the benefits like the revision of
pay with the approval of the competent authority
as paid to the regular Collection Amin. The duties
which have been discharged by the petitioners
while working as Seasonal Collection Amin was
similar to the duties discharged by regular
Collection Amin, and on continuance and
satisfactory services rendered by them as Seasonal
Collection Amin , they have been regularized in
service as per Rules. Thus, from the facts narrated
above, it is evident that though the nomenclature
and nature of appointment to the petitioners were
Seasonal Collection Amin , but as a matter of fact,
they meet all the requirements to be treated as
temporary employees as held by the Apex Court in
the case of A.P. Srivastava Vs. Union of India
and
others,
(1995)
3
UPLBEC
1842
(Supplement), [ See also Ram Pratap Vs. State of
U.P., 2006 (4) ADJ 709, Babu Singh Vs. State of
U.P., 2006 (8) ADJ 371, Kedar Ra-I Vs. State of
U.P., 2008 ILR (All) 659, Ram Sajiwan Maurya
Vs. State of U.P. and others, Writ Petition
No.3031 (S/S) of 2004 (decided on 12 August
2009), Kanti Devi Vs. State of U.P., 2009 (10)
AJD 18, Kishan Singh Vs. State of U.P., 2009 (9)
ADJ 516 & Awadh Bihari Shukla Vs. State of
U.P., 2015 (6) ADJ 186 ].

22. From the judgments referred above, it is
clear that the Courts has consistently held that the
services rendered by an employee either as work
charged employee or Seasonal Collection Amin
are to be counted for granting the pensionary
benefit to them, and the nomenclature of their
appointment, be a daily wager, temporary or
whatever, is not material to consider their claim for
grant of pensionary and retiral benefits.

23. Further, it is also pertinent to mention
that the petitioners have worked for decades as
Seasonal Collection Amin discharging the same
duty which has been discharged by the regular
Collection Amin and have been extended same
benefits which have been extended to the regular
Collection Amin, therefore, in such factual
scenario denying the petitioners the benefit of
pension and other benefits which have been
extended to Regular Collection Amin would not
only be arbitrary but against the concept of the
right to equality as enshrined in Article 14 of the
Constitution of India.

24. In view of the above discussion and
given the law elucidated by the Apex Court as well
as by this Court in various pronouncements
referred above, the services rendered by the
petitioners as Seasonal Collection Amin cannot be
ignored for extending the benefits of pension and
other retiral benefits to them on the pretext that
their appointment is to be treated from the date of
regularization and not from the date of their
engagement as work charged employee.

25. Consequently,the writ petition is
allowed. A writ of mandamus is issued to the
respondent to compute pensionary benefit
payable to the petitioners after taking into account
their entire service including the service rendered
by them as Seasonal Collection Amin. The
amount payable to the petitioners shall be
computed within three months from the date of
presentation of a copy of this order downloaded
from the official website of Allahabad High
Court, and the same shall be paid within the next
two months. The respondents shall also continue
to pay current pensionary benefits as and when
the same fell due.
----------
(2021)12ILR A992
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 21.10.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SARAL SRIVASTAVA, J.

Writ-A No. 5064 of 2021

Sachin Yadav ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
11 All. Sachin Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
993
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Kailash Singh Kushwaha, Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh
Kushwaha

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava

A. Service Law - Compassionate Appointment -
Uttar Pradesh Recognized Basic Schools (Junior
High Schools) (Recruitment and Conditions of
Service of Ministerial Staff and Group 'D'
Employees), Rules, 1984 - Rule 6 - U.P.
Recruitment of Dependents of Government
Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.

The object of compassionate appointment is to
provide immediate relief to the bereaved family
so that the bereaved family may get over the
financial hardship suffered by them on account
of the untimely death of the sole bread earner
of the family. It is settled in law that the
compassionate appointment is an exception to
the general rule and no aspirant has a right to
the compassionate appointment. Thus, the
petitioner
cannot
claim
an
appointment
on
compassionate grounds as a matter of right, and it
can be given to the petitioner if he fulfills the norms
prescribed
for
the
grant
of
compassionate
appointment. (Para 15, 16)

B. Uttar Pradesh Recognized Basic Schools
(Junior
High
Schools)(Recruitment
and
Conditions of Service of Ministerial Staff and
Group 'D' Employees), Rules, 1984: Rule 6 - The
minimum age for recruitment on Class-III Posts is 18
years. The petitioner did not submit any application
as soon as he became eligible for consideration for
appointment on the compassionate ground rather he
applied after six years, at the age of 24 years on
4.11.2019. (Para 14)

C.
U.P.
Recruitment
of
Dependants
of
Government Servants Dying-in-Harness, Rules,
1974 - (a) Under the Scheme for compassionate
appointment, the Rule does not envisage any such
contingency where the widow of the deceased
employee submitted an application for consideration
of appointment on compassionate ground, and
thereafter, she sat idle and did not take any legal
recourse to assert her claim for appointment, rather
she waited for her son to become eligible, thereafter,
she withdrew her application and requested for the
appointment of her son in her place.
The father of the petitioner had died in the year 2006.
The family survived for more than 15 years. The
mother of the petitioner was entitled to claim the
compassionate appointment which she did not
pursue, and surrendered her claim after nine years of
submission of her application with a request for the
appointment of her son in her place. If such a
practice is permitted, that would frustrate the object
of the Scheme of compassionate appointment. (Para
17, 18)

(b) It is true that Rules, 1974 provides that if
the application for compassionate appointment
is submitted after five years, the competent
authority is obliged to forward it to the State
Government
to
consider
the
claim
of
compassionate appointment who is under
obligation to consider the same, but the
application has to be submitted within a
reasonable time after the expiry of the period
prescribed for submitting such application
specifying
the
reasons
for
the
delay in
submitting the application.

If the state government in a given case is satisfied,
that the delay in filing the application is bona fide, it
may consider the application and accord consideration
for compassionate appointment subject to fulfillment
of
other
eligibility
criteria
prescribed
for
compassionate appointment. The said provision does
not confer an indefeasible right upon the aspirant of
the compassionate appointment for consideration of
his application. (Para 20)

In the present case, no such condition exists
inasmuch as the petitioner has not explained the
reason for the delay in submitting the application
rather the facts stated above reveals that the mother
of the petitioner was dormant in pursuing her claim.
(Para 21)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. Central Coalfields Limited Through its Chairman and
Managing Director & ors. Vs Parden Oraon, Civil Appeal
No. 897 of 2021, decided on 09.04.2021 (Para 19)

Precedent distinguished:

1. Madhav Prasad Shakya Vs St. of U.P. & ors., 2018
(11) ADJ 198 (Para 7)
994 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2. Vishal Saini Vs St. of U.P. & ors., 2021 (3) ADJ 74
(LB) (Para 7)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Saral Srivastava, J.)

1. Heard Sri Kailash Singh Kushwaha,
learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
Standing Counsel appearing for the Staterespondent no.1, and Sri Sanjay Kumar
Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for
respondents no.2,3 and 4.

2. The petitioner, through this writ petition,
has prayed for the following reliefs:

"(i) Issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature
of
Mandamus
commanding
the
respondent no.3 to provide compassionate
appointment to the petitioner without any further
delay.

(ii) Issue a writ, order or direction in the
nature
of
Mandamus
commanding
the
respondent no.2 either to take appropriate and
necessary decision on the reference made by
respondent no.3 by letter dated 27.12.2011
followed by reminder dated 30.04.2013 and
04.03.2021
for
providing
compassionate
appointment or to refer the matter to the State
Government f through proper channel forthwith.

(iii) Issue any other writ, order or direction
as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper
under the facts and circumstances of the present
case.

(iv) Award the costs of the petition in favour
of the petitioner."

3. The case of the petitioner is that the
father of the petitioner Late Satya Pal Singh was
an Assistant Teacher in Primary School Jagra,
Block Nidhauli Kala, District Etah, who
unfortunately died on 16.3.2006. After his death,
the mother of the petitioner applied for
compassionate appointment on 3.1.2011. The
application of the mother of the petitioner was
processed, she was asked to submit an
application in the prescribed format. Thereafter,
respondent no.4 forwarded the application of the
mother of the petitioner along with its
recommendation for compassionate appointment
to respondent no.3 on 27.12.2011. Since the
mother of the petitioner applied after five years
from the date of death of his father, therefore,
the respondent no.3 referred the application of
the mother of the petitioner vide letter dated
27.12.2011 to respondent no.2 for grant of
relaxation in time for the delay in submitting the
application.

4. It appears that no decision was taken on
the application of the mother of the petitioner for
the compassionate appointment.

5. It further transpires from the record that
when no decision was taken on the application
of the mother of the petitioner, she withdrew her
application and requested the appointment of her
son Sachin Yadav in her place. The District
Basic Education Officer, Etah vide letter dated
4.3.2021 forwarded the application of the
petitioner for compassionate appointment to the
Secretary,
U.P.
Basic
Shiksha
Parishad,
Prayagraj, for grant of relaxation in time as the
petitioner has submitted the application after
five years from the date of death of his father. In
the aforesaid backdrop, the petitioner has prayed
for the relief extracted above.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that Para-8 of the Government Order
dated 4.9.2000 provides for seeking necessary
approval of the State Government where the
application for the compassionate appointment
has been submitted after five years from the date
of death of the deceased employee, and the State
Government is under obligation to consider the
application of the petitioner for grant of
relaxation for the delay in submitting the said
application. Accordingly, he submits that the
action of the respondents in not considering the
application of the petitioner is illegal. He further
11 All. Sachin Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
995
contends that whatever delay has occurred, the
same has occurred on account of inaction on the
part of the respondents in not considering the
application of compassionate appointment of his
mother in time, therefore, the petitioner is
entitled to relaxation in limitation for grant of
appointment on compassionate ground.

7. In support of the contention, he has
placed reliance upon two judgments of this
Court in the cases of Madhav Prasad Shakya
Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in
2018(11) ADJ 198 and Vishal Saini Vs. State of
U.P. and others reported in 2021 (3) ADJ 74
(LB).

8. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel
contended that the father of the petitioner had
died on 16.3.2006 and more than 15 years have
passed since the date of death of the father of the
petitioner. Accordingly, he contends that a
sufficiently long time has elapsed since the death
of the father of the petitioner, and the family has
survived, therefore, the relief prayed for cannot
be granted at this stage since the object of
compassionate
appointment
is to
provide
immediate relief to the bereaved family.

9. He submits that the mother of the
petitioner had submitted an application on
27.11.2011 after about five years from the date
of death of the father of the petitioner, and as the
limitation prescribed under the Rules for
considering
the
application
for
the
compassionate
appointment
has
expired,
therefore, the application of the mother of the
petitioner had to be referred to the competent
authority for seeking extension of time for
considering
her
claim
for
compassionate
appointment.

10. He submits that though the mother of
the petitioner was entitled to the compassionate
appointment, she did not pursue her claim, and
on 4.11.2019 she withdrew her application with
the request to grant compassionate appointment
to her son. Accordingly, he submits that there is
an inordinate delay in submitting the application
for the compassionate appointment, and the
relief claimed can not be allowed at this stage.
Thus, he submits that the writ petition is devoid
of merit and deserves to be dismissed.

11. I have heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.

12. Indisputably, the father of the petitioner
died on 16.3.2006. The mother of the petitioner
submitted
an
application
seeking
the
compassionate appointment on 3.1.2011. Since
the application of the mother of the petitioner
was not in the proper format, therefore, she was
asked to submit an application in proper format
by respondent no.4. She, thereafter, submitted an
application on 27.12.2011 in the proper format.
Since the mother of the petitioner submitted the
application
after
five
years,
therefore,
respondent no.3 referred the matter to the State
Government seeking the extension of time in
respect to the compassionate appointment of the
mother of the petitioner.

13. The matter was referred to the State
Government but it appears that the State
Government did not act upon the application nor
the mother of the petitioner pursued her claim
for appointment on compassionate ground. Later
on, the mother of the petitioner withdrew her
application for the grant of compassionate
appointment and requested the appointment of
her son on compassionate ground.

14. Accordingly, the petitioner at the age of
24
years
applied for
the
compassionate
appointment on 4.11.2019. Under Rule 6 of the
Uttar Pradesh Recognized Basic Schools (Junior
High Schools)(Recruitment and Conditions of
Service of Ministerial Staff and Group 'D'
Employees), Rules, 1984 (in Short the Rules),
the minimum age for recruitment on Class-III
996 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Posts is 18 years. The petitioner did not submit
any application as soon as he became eligible for
consideration
for
appointment
on
the
compassionate ground rather he applied after six
years after he became eligible for appointment
on compassionate ground.

15. The father of the petitioner had died in
the year 2006 and the mother of the petitioner
withdrew her application after 13 years and
requested
for
grant
of
compassionate
appointment to her son. At this stage, it is worth
noticing that the object of compassionate
appointment is to provide immediate relief to the
bereaved family so that the bereaved family may
get over the financial hardship suffered by them
on account of the untimely death of the sole
bread earner of the family. It is settled in law
that the compassionate appointment is an
exception to the general rule and no aspirant has
a right to the compassionate appointment.

16. Thus, the petitioner cannot claim an
appointment on compassionate grounds as a
matter of right, and it can be given to the
petitioner if he fulfills the norms prescribed for
the grant of compassionate appointment.

17. In the case in hand, the mother of the
petitioner
applied
for
the
compassionate
appointment in the proper format in December
2011. Since the application was submitted
beyond the period of limitation i.e. five years
prescribed for submitting the application for
compassionate
appointment,
therefore,
the
matter was referred to the State Government, but
the State Government did not take any decision
on the application of the mother of the petitioner.
His mother also did not pursue her claim, and
after about 13 years from the date of death of
petitioner's father, she withdrew her application
and requested for the appointment of her son in
her place on compassionate ground. The
petitioner thereafter submitted an application on
4.11.2019.

18. The family of the petitioner survived
for more than 15 years. The mother of the
petitioner
was
entitled
to
claim
the
compassionate appointment which she did not
pursue, and surrendered her claim after nine
years of submission of her application with a
request for the appointment of her son in her
place. Under the Scheme for compassionate
appointment
under
U.P.
Recruitment
of
Dependants of Government Servants Dying-inHarness, Rules, 1974 (in short the Rules), the
Rule does not envisage any such contingency
where the widow of the deceased employee
submitted an application for consideration of
appointment on compassionate ground, and
thereafter, she sat idle and did not take any legal
recourse to assert her claim for appointment on
compassionate ground, rather she waited for her
son to become eligible for compassionate
appointment, thereafter, she withdrew her
application and requested for the appointment of
her son in her place. If such a practice is
permitted, that would frustrate the object of the
Scheme of compassionate appointment which is
to provide immediate succor to the bereaved
family and to help out the family from the rigors
of financial hardship being faced by the family
due to the death of sole bread earner of the
family and also against the settled norms
prescribed
for
grant
of
compassionate
appointment. Since the family has survived for
about 15 years, therefore, this Court believes
that the relief claimed by the petitioner cannot
be granted.

19. This view is supported by the judgment
of the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 897 of
2021, Central Coalfields Limited through its
Chairman and Managing Director & Ors. Vs.
Smt. Parden Oreon decided on 9th April 2021
wherein the Apex Court refused to grant the
compassionate appointment to the son of the
respondent who submitted the application for the
compassionate appointment more than ten years
after the respondent's husband has gone missing.
11 All. Sachin Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
997
Paragraph 9 of the judgment is reproduced
herein-below:

"9. We are in agreement with the High
Court that the reasons given by the employer for
denying compassionate appointment to the
Respondent's son are not justified. There is no
bar in the National Coal Wage Agreement for
appointment of the son of an employee who has
suffered civil death. In addition, merely because
the respondent is working, her son cannot be
denied compassionate appointment as per the
relevant clauses of the National Coal Wage
Agreement. However, the Respondent's husband
is missing since 2002. Two sons of the
Respondent who are the dependents of her
husband as per the records, are also shown as
dependents of the Respondent. It cannot be said
that there there was any financial crisis created
immediately after Respondent's husband went
missing in view of the employment of the
Respondent. Though the reasons given by the
employer to deny the relief sought by the
Respondent are not sustainable, we are
convinced that the Respondent's son cannot be
given compassionate appointment at this point
of time. The application for compassionate
appointment of the son was filed by the
Respondent in the year 2013 which is more than
10 years after the Respondent's husband had
gone missing. As the object of compassionate
appointment is for providing immediate succour
to the family of a deceased employee, the
Respondent's
son
is
not
entitled
for
compassionate appointment after the passage of
a long period of time since his father has gone
missing."

20. It is true that the Rule, 1974 provides
that if the application for compassionate
appointment is submitted after five years, the
competent authority is obliged to forward it to
the State Government to consider the claim of
compassionate appointment who is under
obligation to consider the same, but the
application has to be submitted within a
reasonable time after the expiry of the period
prescribed for submitting such application
specifying the reasons for the delay in
submitting
the
application.
If
the
state
government in a given case is satisfied, that the
delay in filing the application is bonafide, it may
consider
the
application
and
accord
consideration for compassionate appointment
subject to fulfillment of other eligibility criteria
prescribed for compassionate appointment. The
said provision does not confer an indefeasible
right upon the aspirant of the compassionate
appointment for consideration of his application
even though it has been submitted with
inordinate delay without any proper and
bonafide explanation for the delay in submitting
the said application.

21. In the instant case, no such condition
exists inasmuch as the petitioner has not
explained the reason for the delay in submitting
the application rather the facts stated above
reveals that the mother of the petitioner was
dormant in pursuing her claim. Thus, the
argument of the petitioner's counsel that once the
application for compassionate appointment is
submitted after the period prescribed for
submitting the application, the competent
authority is bound to forward the same to the
state government who is under obligation to
consider the same is misconceived and not
sustainable.

22. In the opinion of the Court, Judgments
relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner are
not applicable in the present case. In the case of
Madhav Prasad Shakya (supra), the petitioner
submitted a representation immediately after
attaining the age of majority, which application
was rejected by the State Government on the
ground that the application has been filed after
the expiry of five years. In that circumstances,
the Court held that the application has wrongly
been rejected. The factual situation in the case of
998 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Madhav Prasad Shakya (supra) in which this
Court allowed the writ petition is different from
the facts of the present case, hence, the law
enunciated in the said judgment is not attracted
in the present case.

23. In the case of Vishal Saini (supra), it
has been held that at the time of death of
petitioner's father, he was minor. The mother of
the petitioner was given the compassionate
appointment, who also died on 31.1.2012 during
the service period. At the time of death of his
mother, the petitioner was minor, and as soon as,
he became major, he submitted an application
for appointment on compassionate ground on
11.10.2019 which was rejected by the authority
concerned on the ground of limitation. In such a
factual backdrop, the Court held that the claim
of the petitioner has wrongly been rejected on
the ground of limitation. The facts of the present
case are not akin to the facts of the case of
Vishal Saini (supra), therefore, the judgement of
Vishal Saini (supra) does not help the cause of
the petitioner.

24. Thus, for the reasons given above, the
writ petition lacks merit and is, accordingly,
dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to
costs.
----------
(2021)12ILR A998
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.10.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK AGARWAL, J.

Writ-A No. 13465 of 2021

Kanika Banshiwal & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Ashwani Kumar Yadav
Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Vinit Kumar Srivastava, Sri Vijay Kumar
Srivastava

A. Service law - Deployment of teachers for
non-educational purposes - Right of Children to
Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 -
Section 27 - U.P. Rules, 2011 (Special Rules) -
Rule 21(3) - Appointment of the petitioners as
booth level officer and deployment of their
services for the purposes of conduct of duties
relating to elections, cannot be termed to be
covered under the provisions of Section 27 of
the Act of 2009, providing for prohibition of
deployment of teachers for non-educational purposes.
S. 27 of the RTE Act, 2009 itself carves out an
exception to the duties relating to elections and
meaning of duties relating to election, include
preparation of electoral rolls. (Para 12)

B. Constitution of India - Article 324 - Section
27 of the Act of 2009 - Interpretation - The
words used in Section 27 are 'duties relating to
elections'.

Article 324 deals with the superintendence, direction
and control of the preparation of the electoral
rolls for and the conduct of, all elections to
Parliament and to the Legislature of every State and
of elections to the offices of President and Vice
President held under this Constitution treating them
to be vested in a commission referred to in this
Constitution as the Election Commission.

Use of word 'and', between 'control of the
preparation of electoral rolls for' and 'the conduct of
all
elections'
in
Article
324(1)
means
that
preparation of electoral rolls is a prelude to
conduct
of
elections.
Thus,
when
given
comprehensive and inclusive meaning means that
preparation of electoral rolls is included in
duties relating to elections. (Para 13, 15)

C. Words and Phrases - 'relating to'/'in relation
to' - 'in relation to' are words of comprehensiveness
which might both have a direct significance as well as
indirect significance, dependent on the context. They
are not words of restrictive content and ought not to
be so construed. (Para 14)

The word 'relating to' used in S. 27, has to be given a
comprehensive meaning and will include all the works
relating to election where elections are notified or