# Simmi Kumari & Anr v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 4 ILRA 105
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-04-05
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 4118 of 2025
- **Bench:** Ajay Bhanot
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/simmi-kumari-anr-v-union-of-india-ors-54572
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Civil Law - Life Insurance Corporation of
India (Recruitment of Class-III and ClassIV Staff) Instructions, 1979 - Clause 21 -
Petitioner No.1 is daughter and Petitioner
No.2 is wife of deceased employee, who
died in harness on 19.05.2024 - Petitioner
No.2
applied
for
compassionate
appointment in favour of her daughter,
submitting that her son, employed
with
Punjab
National
Bank,
had
severed ties with family and was living
separately - Both petitioners were
dependants of deceased employee -
Application
Rejected
-
Under
applicable
Rules,
authorities
must
examine whether deceased employee's
gainfully employed son is maintaining
dependants - If he has no connection
with them or fails to provide support,
his
employment
should
not
affect
decision
on
compassionate
appointment
-
Any
contrary
view
defeats purpose of such appointments
- These crucial aspects overlooked in
impugned order - Matter is remitted to
respondent authorities to reconsider
petitioner's claim, taking into account
all relevant factors, including financial
condition of deceased's family. (Para 4, 9,
13)

Petition allowed. (E-13)

## Text

4 All. Simmi Kumari & Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors.
105
15. The writ petition is allowed in
view of the aforesaid terms.
----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 105
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 05.04.2025
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Writ A No. 4118 of 2025

Simmi Kumari & Anr. ...Petitioners
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Rajesh Kumar Dubey

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Anoop Tiwari, Ashutosh Mani
Tripathi, Siddharth Singhal

Civil Law - Life Insurance Corporation of
India (Recruitment of Class-III and ClassIV Staff) Instructions, 1979 - Clause 21 -
Petitioner No.1 is daughter and Petitioner
No.2 is wife of deceased employee, who
died in harness on 19.05.2024 - Petitioner
No.2
applied
for
compassionate
appointment in favour of her daughter,
submitting that her son, employed
with
Punjab
National
Bank,
had
severed ties with family and was living
separately - Both petitioners were
dependants of deceased employee -
Application
Rejected
-
Under
applicable
Rules,
authorities
must
examine whether deceased employee's
gainfully employed son is maintaining
dependants - If he has no connection
with them or fails to provide support,
his
employment
should
not
affect
decision
on
compassionate
appointment
-
Any
contrary
view
defeats purpose of such appointments
- These crucial aspects overlooked in
impugned order - Matter is remitted to
respondent authorities to reconsider
petitioner's claim, taking into account
all relevant factors, including financial
condition of deceased's family. (Para 4, 9,
13)

Petition allowed. (E-13)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot, J.)

1. Heard Shri Rajesh Kumar
Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner,
Shri Ashutosh Mani Tripathi, learned
counsel for the respondent Nos.2 to 3 and
Shri
Anoop
Tiwari,
learned
Central
Counsel for the respondent No.1-Union of
India.

2. By the impugned order dated
18.10.2024 the claim of the petitioner No.1
has been declined. The order dated
18.10.2024 is cryptic and does not disclose
any reasons for invalidating the claim of
the petitioner No.1 for grant of appointment
on compassionate ground.

3. By the impugned order dated
06.12.2024 the application of the petitioner
No.1
for
grant
of
appointment
on
compassionate ground has been rejected
on the footing that the son of the petitioner
No.2 was gainfully employed in a bank.

4. The petitioner No.1 is the
daughter and the petitioner No.2 is the wife
of the deceased-employee respectively who
died in harness on 19.05.2024. The
petitioner No.2 submitted an application for
appointment of her daughter (petitioner
No.1) on compassionate grounds. An
affidavit submitted by the petitioner No.2
in
support
of
the
application
for
appointment on compassionate grounds
asserted that her son was working in the
Punjab National Bank. According to the
said affidavit, after his appointment the son
had severed all connections with the family
and was staying separately. The petitioner
106 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
No.2 is dependant on her daughter
(petitioner No.1). Both were dependants of
the deceased employee.

5. The relevant rules governing the
grant of appointment on compassionate
grounds are extracted hereunder:

"21.
RELAXATION
IN
FAVOUR OF NEAR RELATIVES OF
AN EMPLOYEE WHO DIES WHILE
IN SERVICE OR RETIRES AT LEAST
5 YEARS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF
SUPERANNUATION:

(iii) The relaxations shall be
admissible only where none of the
members of the family - spouse, son or
unmarried
daughter
-
is
gainfully
employed. However, if the widow is
already employed elsewhere in Private
Sector she will be allowed to take up a job
in the Corporation in Class III or Class IV
Cadre
commensurate
with
her
qualifications if she opts for the same
(Circular No. MPP&R Desk/ZD/3/2001
dated 29/12/2001). Further provided that
the
condition
regarding
gainful
employment, shall not be applicable where
it is established by documentary evidence
that the death of the employee is caused by
his/her employment.

Provided
further
that
this
provision is meant only to recognize the act
of courage and bravery displayed by such
an employee."

6. The rules for appointment on
compassionate
ground
have
to
be
interpreted in a manner that they achieve
the aforesaid legislature as stated above.

7.
The
appointments
on
compassionate ground passed the test of
constitutional validity by a slender margin.
The
sole
justification
to
make
compassionate ground appointments is that
the dependants of the deceased employee
face unforeseen financial destitution after
the death of the latter and need urgent
succour. Compassionate appointments are
provided to the family to immediately tide
over the sudden financial crisis so caused
by the death of the employee. This feature
alone constituted the kin of a deceased
employee into one class and on this sole
footing the rationale of compassionate
ground appointments was justified by
Constitutional Courts.

8. In this wake determination of the
financial condition or financial crisis being
faced by the family as a result of the death
of the employee is thus a mandatory pre
condition
for
appointment
on
compassionate grounds.

9. The scope of the aforesaid Rules
has to be interpreted in light of the above
said holdings of constitutional courts and in
the facts of this case. Under the said Rules
the authorities has to examine as to whether
the son of the deceased who is gainfully
employed is maintaining the dependants
of the deceased or not. If the member of
the family who is gainfully employed has
no connection with the dependants of the
deceased or does not cater to their needs
or fails to maintain them, the said
employment shall not influence the
decision for grant of appointment on
compassionate grounds. Any contrary
interpretation will defeat the purpose of
grant
of
compassionate
grounds
appointment. These material aspects have
been overlooked in the impugned order
dated 06.12.2024.

10. As seen earlier the impugned
order dated 18.10.2024 is devoid of any
reasons.
4 All. Ram Sundar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors
107
11. The impugned orders dated
18.10.2024 and 06.12.2024 neglect to
consider the aforesaid germane aspects
while invalidating the claim of the
petitioners. The impugned orders dated
18.10.2024 and 06.12.2024 are vitiated on
account of non application of mind to
relevant consideration.

12. In this wake, the impugned
letters dated 18.10.2024 and 06.12.2024 are
quashed.

13. The matter is remitted to the
respondents-authorities who shall decide
the claim of the petitioner after considering
all relevant factors including the financial
condition of the family of the deceased in
light of above observations and as per law
within a period of three months from the
date of receipt of a certified copy of this
order.

14. The writ petition is allowed to
the extent indicated above.
----------
(2025) 4 ILRA 107
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 08.04.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ A No. 7119 of 2023

Ram Sundar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Ram Krishna Yadav, Sri Jitendra Kumar
Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.
Service
Law
-
Police
Constable
Recruitment - Suppression of criminal
antecedents - False affidavit - Scope of
judicial review - Applicability of Avtar
Singh principles - Clean acquittal -
Trivial case - Ghost Goondas Act case -
Failure to apply mind- Suppression of
criminal case must be viewed in light of
circumstances,
acquittal
nature,
and
severity - Goondas Act proceedings are
not criminal cases - Employment cannot
be
denied
mechanically
without
meaningful inquiry - Non-application of
mind renders cancellation order arbitrary
and unsustainable. (Paras 15 to 27, 32 to
36)
 Petition allowed. (E-14)

HELD:
The principles laid down in Avtar Singh do not
universally and without exception forbid the
consideration of a person's candidature, guilty of
suppression or furnishing false information of
involvement in a criminal case, at the time he
makes his application for employment or at the
time of verification of his character, post
selection. (Para 17)

The general rule is that there should be no
suppression of information by the candidate as
to conviction, acquittal, arrest or the pendency
of a criminal case, whether before or after
entering
service.
But,
if
information
is
suppressed about the involvement in a criminal
case, what would be the impact thereof upon
the candidature of a person, or so to speak, his
right to appointment. It would depend on a
variety of factors. The principles, that are
summed up in paragraph No.38 of the report in
Avtar Singh, are backed by elaborate reasons,
which broadly frown upon suppression or
furnishing of false information of involvement in
a criminal case by a candidate, but does not
make it an indefeasible ground, leading to
rejection of candidature in all cases. No doubt,
the principle in paragraph No.38.4 applies to a
case, where suppression or false information of
involvement in a criminal case is given, where a
conviction or acquittal has already happened,
but it is not a mathematical formula where
pending judgment, the same principles cannot
be rationally extended. It is a well regarded
principle that a judgment is to be understood for