# Shivam Kumar Dwivedi v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 11 ILRA 851
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-10-19
- **Case number:** Writ -A No. 6999 of 2022
- **Bench:** Alok Mathur
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/shivam-kumar-dwivedi-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47895
- **Pages:** 9

## Headnote

Dying in Harness Rules, 1974-Rule 5-on
death
of
his
mother-Petitioner
sought
compassionate appointment-rejected-Petitioner's
father is working in the Labour Department in
Government of U.P. -subsequently retired and is
receiving pension-Petitioner's case falls under
the category who are ineligible for appointment
on compassionate grounds-no benefit can be
given-if one spouse was in previous employment
of th & e St.government-then the legal heir
would not be eligible for grant of compassionate
appointment-
Held, the word used in Rule 5 that the spouse
should not be "employed under Central or
St.Government" also include persons who have
retired or "were in employment of Central or
St.government."(para 22)

W.P. dismissed. (E-9)
List of Cases cited:

## Text

11 All. Shivam Kumar Dwivedi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
851
determine the amount of arrears of salary
for the period of absence instead of
directing to reconsider the matter as the
matter is old. Since the petitioner has not
discharged the Government work during
the period w.e.f. 26.12.1997 to 15.06.2009
the petitioner is entitled for 75% of the
salary as arrears of salary for the period
w.e.f 26.12.1997 to 15.06.2009 with
interest at the rate of 6% per annum till the
date of payment.

32. With the aforesaid observations
and directions the writ petition is allowed.
No order as to costs.
----------
(2022) 11 ILRA 851
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 19.10.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ALOK MATHUR, J.

Writ -A No. 6999 of 2022

Shivam Kumar Dwivedi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Anshuman Pandey, Jyotindra Prakash Pathak,
Laxmi Kant Pathak

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Dying in Harness Rules, 1974-Rule 5-on
death
of
his
mother-Petitioner
sought
compassionate appointment-rejected-Petitioner's
father is working in the Labour Department in
Government of U.P. -subsequently retired and is
receiving pension-Petitioner's case falls under
the category who are ineligible for appointment
on compassionate grounds-no benefit can be
given-if one spouse was in previous employment
of th & e St.government-then the legal heir
would not be eligible for grant of compassionate
appointment-
Held, the word used in Rule 5 that the spouse
should not be "employed under Central or
St.Government" also include persons who have
retired or "were in employment of Central or
St.government."(para 22)

W.P. dismissed. (E-9)
List of Cases cited:

1. St.of H. P. & anr. Vs Shashi Kumar, 2019 (3)
SCC 653

2. St.of U.P. & ors. Vs Premlata, 2022 (1) SCC
30

3. Fertilizers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. &
ors. Vs Anusree K.B., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1331

4. V. Sivamurthy Vs St.of Andhra Pradesh & ors.,
2008 13 SCC 730

5. St.of Karn. Vs Appa Balu Ingale, 1995 Supp.
(4) SCC 469
(Delivered by Hon'ble Alok Mathur, J.)

1. Heard Sri Laxmi Kant Pathak,
learned counsel for petitioner as well as
learned
Standing
Counsel
for
the
respondents.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner has
submitted that the mother of the petitioner
Smt. Durgawati Dwivedi was working on
the post of Senior Assistant in Government
Polytechnic, Pratapgarh died in harness on
24.09.2021. She survived by her husband
Sri
Prem
Kumar
Dubey,
one
son
(petitioner) and one daughter.

3. On death of Smt. Durgawati
Dwivedi,
the
petitioner
moved
an
application for appointment under dying in
Harness Rules, 1974 claiming appointment
on compassionate ground. His application
has been rejected by means of impugned
order dated 23.08.2022 passed by Director,
Technical Education, Uttar Pradesh on the
852 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ground that the father of the petitioner,
Prem Kumar Dubey was working in the
Labour Department in Government of U.P.
and has subsequently retired and is
receiving
pension
from
the
State
Government.

4. It has further been stated that in
terms of rule 5 of Dying in Harness Rules,
it is provided that in case the spouse of the
deceased
Government
servant
is
an
employee of the Central Government or a
State Government then he or she shall not
not be eligible for the the benefit under the
Dying Harness Rules, 1974.

5.

Assailing
the
order
dated
23.08.2022, learned counsel for petitioner
has submitted that the father of the
petitioner is a retired employee and is no
longer in employment and consequently
Rule 5 of Dying Harness Rules, 1974
would not be applicable in the facts of the
present case. He further submits that
petitioner was totally dependent on his
mother and was not dependent on his father
and for the reasons also he has while
assailing the order dated 23.08.2022 sought
a
direction
for
appointment
on
compassionate grounds under Dying in
Harness Rules, 1974.

6. Learned Standing Counsel on the
other hand submits that the very purpose of
Rule 5 is that a person who is already in
government service would be receiving
remuneration from the State government
and subsequent to his retirement would be
receiving pension and consequently a legal
heirs of such a person cannot be held to be
the destitute so as to give the benefit of
dying in Harness Rules.

7. He further submits that in various
judgment of the Apex Court as well as by
this Court, it has repeatedly been held that
the purpose of Rules of 1974 are only
provide succor to the immediate family of
the sole bread earner who has died in
harness so as to prevent destitution to the
entire family. It is for this very purpose of
Rule 5 of Rules, 1974, it is provided that in
case the spouse is employed with the State
or Central Government then such a person
would not be eligible for appointment
under Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.

8. It is stated that undoubtedly the
father of the petitioner was a government
servant and he has retired and presently
receiving
pension
which
should
be
sufficient to support him and his family and
consequently no such claim can be made by
the petitioner that the family has fallen into
destitution.

9. He submits that Rule 5 should be
purposely interpreted in such a manner so
as not defeat the purpose of statute and
hence submits that there is no infirmity in
passing of the impugned order. He further
submits that there is no material adduced
by the petitioner to support the contention
made by him in the petition.

10 I have heard rival contention of the
parties.

11. It is noticed that the mother of the
petitioner was working on the post of
Senior
Assistant
in
Government
Polytechnic, Pratapgarh died in harness on
24.09.2021. The father of the petitioner was
also a government servant and working in
the Labour Department and admittedly he
is receiving pension.

12.

The
petitioner
moved
an
application under Rules of 1974 for
compassionate appointment being the son
11 All. Shivam Kumar Dwivedi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
853
of deceased government servant and his
application has been rejected by the
impugned order on the ground that his
father was also in government service and
his claim for appointment is barred by Rule
5 of Rules of 1974.

13. Rule 5 of the Dying in Harness
Rules, 1975 are quoted hereinbelow:-

"Rule 5 of U.P. Recruitment of
Dependant of Government Servant Dying in
Harness Rules, 1974 where it is provided that
"in case a Government servant dies in
harness after the commencement of these
rules and the spouse of the deceased
Government servant is not already employed
under the Central Government or a State
Government or a Corporation owned or
controlled by the Central Government or a
State Government, one member of his family
who is not already employed under the
Central Government or a State Government
or a Corporation owned or controlled by the
Central Government or a State Government
shall, on making an application for the
purposes, be given a suitable employment in
Government service on a post except the post
which is within the purview of the Uttar
Pradesh Public Service Commission."

14. It is relevant to refer here the
various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court
with regard to the purpose and object behind
appointing
persons
of
the
deceased
government employee on compassionate
grounds.

15. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the
case of State of Himachal Pradesh and
another Vs. Shashi Kumar, 2019 (3) SCC
653, held as under:-

"18. While considering the rival
submissions, it is necessary to bear in mind
that compassionate appointment is an
exception
to
the
general
rule
that
appointment to any public post in the
service of the State has to be made on the
basis of principles which accord with
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
Dependants of a deceased employee of the
State are made eligible by virtue of the
Policy on compassionate appointment. The
basis of the policy is that it recognizes that
a family of a deceased employee may be
placed in a position of financial hardship
upon the untimely death of the employee
while in service. It is the immediacy of the
need which furnishes the basis for the State
to allow the benefit of compassionate
appointment. Where the authority finds that
the financial and other circumstances of
the family are such that in the absence of
immediate assistance, it would be reduced
to being indigent, an application from a
dependent member of the family could be
considered. The terms on which such
applications would be considered are
subject to the policy which is framed by the
State and must fulfill the terms of the
Policy. In that sense, it is a well-settled
principle of law that there is no right to
compassionate appointment. But, where
there is a policy, a dependent member of
the family of a deceased employee is
entitled
to
apply
for
compassionate
appointment and to seek consideration of
the application in accordance with the
terms and conditions which are prescribed
by the State.

19. The policy in the present case
which was formulated on 18 January 1990
categorically
speaks
of
providing
employment assistance to dependents of
government servants who have died while
in service, "leaving their families in
indigent circumstances". The Policy, in
other words, is designed to meet the needs
of those families where the death of a
854 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
government servant has left them in
indigent
circumstances,
requiring
immediate means of subsistence. The policy
recognizes in Paragraph 10 that the
benefits which are received by a family on
account of welfare measures are required
to be considered. Among them, the policy
stipulates that family pension and death
gratuity are required to be taken into
account
in
assessing
the
financial
circumstances of the family. The Policy
does not preclude the dependants of a
deceased employee from being considered
for compassionate appointment merely
because they are in receipt of family
pension. What the Policy mandates is that
the receipt of family pension should be
taken into account in considering whether
the family has been left in indigent
circumstances requiring immediate means
of subsistence. The receipt of family
pension
is,
therefore,
one
of
the
considerations which is to be taken into
account. Paragraph 10(c) of the Policy sets
out the measures provided by the State
which have a bearing on the financial need
of the family.

21. The decision in Govind Prakash
Verma
(supra)
has
been
considered
subsequently in several decisions. But,
before we advert to those decisions, it is
necessary to note that the nature of
compassionate
appointment
had
been
considered by this Court in Umesh Kumar
Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana4. The
principles which have been laid down in
Umesh Kumar Nagpal (supra) have been
subsequently followed in a consistent line
of
precedents
in
this
Court.
These
principles
are
encapsulated
in
the
following extract:

"2. ...As a rule, appointments in the
public services should be made strictly on
the basis of open invitation of applications
and merit. No other mode of appointment
nor any other consideration is permissible.
Neither the Governments nor the public
authorities are at liberty to follow any
other procedure or relax the qualifications
laid down by the rules for the post.
However, to this general rule which is to be
followed strictly in every case, there are
some exceptions carved out in the interests
of
justice
and
to
meet
certain
contingencies. One such exception is in
favour of the dependants of an employee
dying in harness and leaving his family in
penury
and
without
any
means
of
livelihood. In such cases, out of pure
humanitarian consideration taking into
consideration the fact that unless some
source of livelihood is provided, the family
would not be able to make both ends meet,
a provision is made in the rules to provide
gainful
employment
to
one
of
the
dependants of the deceased who may be
eligible for such employment. The whole
object
of
granting
compassionate
employment is thus to enable the family to
tide over the sudden crisis. The object is
not to give a member of such family a post
much less a post for post held by the
deceased. What is further, mere death of an
employee in harness does not entitle his
family to such source of livelihood. The
Government
or
the
public
authority
concerned has to examine the financial
condition of the family of the deceased, and
it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the
provision of employment, the family will
not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to
be offered to the eligible member of the
family. The posts in Classes III and IV are
the lowest posts in non-manual and manual
4 (1994) 4 SCC 138 categories and hence
they alone can be offered on compassionate
grounds, the object being to relieve the
family, of the financial destitution and to
help it get over the emergency. The
provision of employment in such lowest
11 All. Shivam Kumar Dwivedi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
855
posts by making an exception to the rule is
justifiable and valid since it is not
discriminatory.
The
favourable
treatment given to such dependant of the
deceased employee in such posts has a
rational nexus with the object sought to
be
achieved,
viz.,
relief
against
destitution. No other posts are expected
or required to be given by the public
authorities for the purpose. It must be
remembered in this connection that as
against the destitute family of the
deceased there are millions of other
families which are equally, if not more
destitute. The exception to the rule made
in favour of the family of the deceased
employee is in consideration of the
services rendered by him and the
legitimate expectations, and the change
in the status and affairs, of the family
engendered by the erstwhile employment
which are suddenly upturned."

16. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the
case of State of Uttar Pradesh and others
Vs. Premlata, 2022 (1) SCC 30, held as
under:-

"8.
While
considering
the
issue
involved in the present appeal, the law laid
down by this court on compassionate
ground on the death of the deceased
employee are required to be referred to and
considered. In the recent decision this court
in Civil Appeal No.5122 of 2021 in the case
of the Director of Treasuries in Karnataka
& Anr. vs. V. Somashree, had occasion to
consider the principle governing the grant
of appointment on compassionate ground.
After referring to the decision of this court
in N.C. Santhosh vs. State of Karnataka
and Ors. reported in (2020) 7 SCC 617,
this Court has summarized the principle
governing the grant of appointment on
compassionate ground 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.
9. As per the law laid down by this court in
catena of decisions on the appointment on
compassionate
ground,
for
all
the
government vacancies equal opportunity
should be provided to all aspirants as
mandated under Article 14 and 16 of the
Constitution. However, appointment on
compassionate
ground
offered
to
a
dependent of a deceased employee is an
exception
to
the
said
norms.
The
compassionate ground is a concession and
not a right.
9.1 In the case of State of Himachal
Pradesh and Anr. vs. Shashi Kumar
reported in (2019) 3 SCC 653, this court
had an occasion to consider the object and
purpose of appointment on compassionate
ground and considered decision of this
court in case of Govind Prakash Verma vs.
LIC reported in (2005) 10 SCC 289, in
para 21 and 26, it is observed and held as
under: "21. The decision in Govind
Prakash Verma [Govind Prakash Verma v.
LIC, (2005) 10 SCC 289, has been
considered
subsequently
in
several
decisions. But, before we advert to those
856 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
decisions, it is necessary to note that the
nature of compassionate appointment had
been considered by this Court in Umesh
Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana [Umesh
Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994)
4 SCC 138 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 930] . The
principles which have been laid down in
Umesh Kumar Nagpal [Umesh Kumar
Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC
138 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 930] have been
subsequently followed in a consistent line
of
precedents
in
this
Court.
These
principles
are
encapsulated
in
the
following extract:

(Umesh Kumar Nagpal case [Umesh
Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994)
4 SCC 138 : 1994 SCC (L&S) 930] , SCC
pp. 13940, para 2) "2. ? As a rule,
appointments in the public services should
be made strictly on the basis of open
invitation of applications and merit. No
other mode of appointment nor any other
consideration is permissible. Neither the
Governments nor the public authorities are
at liberty to follow any other procedure or
relax the qualifications laid down by the
rules for the post. However, to this general
rule which is to be followed strictly in every
case, there are some exceptions carved out
in the interests of justice and to meet
certain contingencies. One such exception
is in favour of the dependants of an
employee dying in harness and leaving his
family in penury and without any means of
livelihood. In such cases, out of pure
humanitarian consideration taking into
consideration the fact that unless some
source of livelihood is provided, the family
would not be able to make both ends meet,
a provision is made in the rules to provide
gainful
employment
to
one
of
the
dependants of the deceased who may be
eligible for such employment. The whole
object
of
granting
compassionate
employment is thus to enable the family to
tide over the sudden crisis. The object is
not to give a member of such family a post
much less a post for post held by the
deceased. What is further, mere death of an
employee in harness does not entitle his
family to such source of livelihood. The
Government
or
the
public
authority
concerned has to examine the financial
condition of the family of the deceased, and
it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the
provision of employment, the family will
not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to
be offered to the eligible member of the
family. The posts in Classes III and IV are
the lowest posts in nonmanual and manual
categories and hence they alone can be
offered on compassionate grounds, the
object being to relieve the family, of the
financial destitution and to help it get over
the
emergency.
The
provision
of
employment in such lowest posts by making
an exception to the rule is justifiable and
valid since it is not discriminatory. The
favourable
treatment
given
to
such
dependant of the deceased employee in
such posts has a rational nexus with the
object sought to be achieved viz. relief
against destitution. No other posts are
expected or required to be given by the
public authorities for the purpose. It must
be remembered in this connection that as
against the destitute family of the deceased
there are millions of other families which
are equally, if not more destitute. The
exception to the rule made in favour of the
family of the deceased employee is in
consideration of the services rendered by
him and the legitimate expectations, and
the change in the status and affairs, of the
family
engendered
by
the
erstwhile
employment which are suddenly upturned."
"26. The judgment of a Bench of two
Judges in Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v. State of
Maharashtra [Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v.
State of Maharashtra, (2008) 11 SCC 384 :
11 All. Shivam Kumar Dwivedi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
857
(2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 1077] has adopted the
principle
that
appointment
on
compassionate grounds is not a source of
recruitment, but a means to enable the
family of the deceased to get over a sudden
financial crisis. The financial position of
the family would need to be evaluated on
the basis of the provisions contained in the
scheme. The decision in Govind Prakash
Verma [Govind Prakash Verma v. LIC,
(2005) 10 SCC 289 : 2005 SCC (L&S) 590]
has been duly considered, but the Court
observed that it did not appear that the
earlier binding precedents of this Court
have been taken note of in that case."

17. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the
case
of
Fertilizers
and
Chemicals
Travancore Ltd. and Others Vs. Anusree
K.B., 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1331, held as
under:-

"18. Thus, as per the law laid down by
this Court in the aforesaid decisions,
compassionate appointment is an exception to
the general rule of appointment in the public
services and is in favour of the dependents of a
deceased dying in harness and leaving his
family in penury and without any means of
livelihood, and in such cases, out of pure
humanitarian
consideration
taking
into
consideration the fact that unless some source
of livelihood is provided, the family would not
be able to make both ends meet, a provision is
made in the rules to provide gainful
employment to one of the dependants of the
deceased who may be eligible for such
employment. The whole object of granting
compassionate employment is, thus, to enable
the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The
object is not to give such family a post much
less a post held by the deceased."

18. The exclusion of the person
whose one of the parents is employed has
been done for the purpose that such a
member of the family of the deceased
would not fall into destitution on death of
the Government Servant as he has the
spouse of the Government Servant, who
himself/herself is a government employee
is surviving and consequently the family
should not fall into destitution and hence
for appointment of such person has been
kept out of the purview of the Dying in
Harness Rules, 197.

19. Needles to say that the father of
the petitioner was pensioner and was
previously in the employment of the State
government and this Court is not convinced
by the Statement made by the petitioner
that he was supported only by his mother. It
has been admitted by him that his parents
had not been divorced and they were living
together till the death of the mother of the
petitioner and there is no material available
on record to indicate that the petitioner was
supported solely by his mother and there is
no evidence available that they were living
separately .

20. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the
case of V. Sivamurthy Vs. State of
Andhra Pradesh and others, 2008 13
SCC 730 has summarized the principles
relating to compassionate appointment as
follows:-

"9.
The
principles
relating
to
compassionate
appointments
may
be
summarized thus :

(a) Compassionate appointment based
only
on
descent
is
impermissible.
Appointments in public service should be
made strictly on the basis of open invitation
of applications and comparative merit,
having regard to Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India. Though no other
mode of appointment is permissible,
858 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
appointments on compassionate grounds
are well recognised exception to the said
general rule, carved out in the interest of
justice to meet certain contingencies.

(b) Two well recognized contingencies
which are carved out as exceptions to the
general rule are :

(i)
appointment
on
compassionate
grounds to meet the sudden crisis occurring
in a family on account of the death of the
bread-winner while in service.

(ii) appointment on compassionate
ground to meet the crisis in a family on
account of medical invalidation of the bread
winner.

Another
contingency,
though
less
recognized, is where land holders lose their
entire land for a public project, the scheme
provides for compassionate appointment to
members of the families of project affected
persons. (Particularly where the law under
which the acquisition is made does provide
for
market
value
and
solatium,
as
compensation).

(c) Compassionate appointment can
neither be claimed, nor be granted, unless the
rules governing the service permit such
appointments. Such appointments shall be
strictly in accordance with the scheme
governing such appointments and against
existing vacancies.

(d) Compassionate appointments are
permissible only in the case of a dependant
member of family of the employee concerned,
that is spouse, son or daughter and not other
relatives. Such appointments should be only
to posts in the lower category, that is, class
III and IV posts and the crises cannot be
permitted to be converted into a boon by
seeking employment in Class I or II posts."

21. Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the
case of State of Karnataka Vs. Appa Balu
Ingale, 1995 Supp. (4) SCC 469 has held as
under:-

"Judge must be a jurist endowing with
the legislator's wisdom, historian's search
for truth, prophet's vision, capacity to
respond to the needs of the present,
resilience to cope with the demands of the
future
and
to
decide
objectively
disengaging himself/herself from every
personal
influence
or
predilictions.
Therefore,
the
Judges
would
adopt
purposive interpretation of the dynamic
concepts of the Constitution and the Act
with its interpretative armoury to articulate
the felt necessities of the time."

22. The Court has also considered the
fact that appointment on the ground of
descent is violative of the constitutional
provisions and specifically barred under
Article 16 of the Constitution of India and
it is only exception carved out the said
Rules
the
appointment
is
given
on
compassionate grounds and consequently
the Court was of the opinion that the Rules
have to be strictly construed. This Court is
of the considered view that Rule 5 which
provides for ineligibility for appointment
on compassionate grounds for certain
category of the persons and the case of the
petitioner
clearly
falls
under
the
exclusionary clause provided under Rule 5
and consequently no benefit of the same
can be given to the petitioner. In case any
interpretation where the benefit is granted
to the petitioner, then it would run clearly
contrary to the specific mandate provided
in Rule 5 of Rules, 1974 and consequently
such a direction cannot be given by this
Court in exercise of powers under Article
226 of the Constitution of India.Though the
word used in Rule 5 of Rule of 1974 that
the spouse should not be "employed under
Central or State Government" but will not
only
include
persons
who
are
in
employment at the time of death of the
Government Servant but also persons who
11 All. Babulal Chawdhary Vs. Prescribed Auth./Addl. Civil Judge & Ors.
859
have retired or "were in employment of
Central or State Government".

23. The benefit of employment on
compassionate ground is available to a
limited section of persons who are
specifically included in the Rule of 1974.
The purpose of grant of appointment has
been clearly culled by various judgments of
the Supreme Court and such appointment is
provided to prevent destitution. Though the
mother of the petitioner working in
government service died in harness, but her
husband was also on in government service
in the Labour Department and had retired
prior to death of his wife. After the
retirement he is receiving pension.

24. This court is of the considered
view that if the spouse of the deceased
government servant is receiving pension
then it cannot be said that the family would
fall into destitution as the pensioner father
can very well take care of the petitioner,
and hence he cannot claim benefit of
compassionate appointment under Rule of
1974, and his claim would be deemed to be
included in Rule 5 of Rule of 1974

25. In light of the above and specially
considering the fact that a specific
provisions under said rules, dis-entitles the
petitioner for appointment under Rules,
1974, no such direction sought by the
petitioner can be granted.

26. In the aforesaid circumstances,
this Court is of the consider view that in
Rule 5 of Rules, 1974 even if one of the
spouse was in previous employment of the
State government , then the legal heir
would not be eligible for grant of
compassionate
appointment
and
consequently this Court does not find any
infirmity in the impugned order dated order
23.08.2022 and consequently the writ
petition bereft of merits and is accordingly
dismissed.
----------
(2022) 11 ILRA 859
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 22.11.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ABDUL MOIN, J.

Writ-A No. 1000145 of 2009

Babulal Chawdhary ...Petitioner
Versus
Prescribed Auth./Addl. Civil Judge & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Madhur Kant Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C, Bireshwar Nath

Civil Law - Urban Buildings ( Regulation of
Letting, Rent and Eviction) Act, 1972 -
Application was filed u/s 21 of the Act-for
release of two shops under the tenancy of the
Petitioner-civil suit also filed -for permanent
injunction-stay order granted-despite interim
order-both shops were demolished-Application
u/s 29-A was filed by the Petitioner for direction
to the landlord/respondent to reconstruct the
shops or to permit the Petitioner to reconstructapplication rejected-Section 29-A -does not
provide for filing of an application for re-building
of a demolished building under tenancy -
application not maintainable-no illegality in
impugned order.

W.P. dismissed . (E-9)
List of Cases cited:

1. M.S. Grewal & anr. Vs Deep Chand Sood &
ors.-AIR 2001 SC 3660

2. The St.of Punjab & anr. Vs Shamlal Murari &
anr.-AIR 1976 SC 1177