# Smt. Babita Kumari @ Babita Devi v. U.P. Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 7 ILRA 373
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-07-10
- **Case number:** Writ A No. 6617 of 2025
- **Bench:** Ajay Bhanot
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-babita-kumari-babita-devi-v-u-p-rajya-vidyut-utpadan-nigam-limited-ors-53553
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Shad Khan, Shishir Prakash

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether
the
office
memorandum
dated
16.07.2024 pertaining to appointments on
compassionate grounds shall apply prospectively
or will operate retrospectively.
HEADNOTE
Service
Law
-
Compassionate
Appointment
-
Retrospective
or
Prospective Operation - Applicability of
Modified Scheme.

The office memorandum dated 16.07.2024
barred compassionate appointments on Class IV
posts and confined such appointments to Class
III posts only. Petitioner's husband, a Class IV
employee, died in harness on 22.10.2023.
Petitioner, qualified only for a Class IV post, had
applied in February 2024, before the issuance of
the memorandum.
Held:
By
barring
compassionate
ground
appointment on Class IV posts, the office
memorandum
dated
16.07.2024
effectively
precludes the said marginalized class of citizens
from
the
benefits
of
appointments
on
compassionate grounds. The interpretation as to
the applicability of a modified Scheme should
depend only upon a determinate and fixed
criteria such as the date of death and not an
indeterminate and variable factor. Hence, "the
office memorandum dated 16.07.2024 shall
apply prospectively and only to applications for
grant of compassionate appointments which
were filed after 16.07.2024. - Case of the
petitioner shall be covered by the earlier
provisions for grant of compassionate ground
appointments which permitted appointment on
Class IV posts. The office memorandum dated
16.07.2024 shall not be applicable to the case of
the petitioner. Writ petition allowed; matter
remitted to respondents to process appointment
within three months. (E-5)
CASE LAW CITED
The
Secretary
to
Government
(Department of Education - Primary) &
Ors. v. Bheemesh @ Bheemappa, Civil
Appeal No. 7752 of 2021; Canara Bank v.
Ajith Kumar G.K., 2025 SCC OnLine SC
290; Indian Bank v. Promila, (2020) 12
SCC
767;N.C.
Santhosh
v.
State
of
Karnataka, (2020) 7 SCC 617; State of
Madhya Pradesh v. Amit Shrivas, (2020)
10 SCC 496; State of Madhya Pradesh v.
Ashish Awasthi, (2021) 11 SCC 656.
ACTS REFERRED TO
374 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Constitution of India - Article 226.
Office Memorandum dated 16.07.2024 issued by
U.P. Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. regarding
compassionate appointments.
KEYWORDS
Compassionate
appointment,
retrospective
operation, prospective application, Class IV post,
marginalized dependants, poverty and illiteracy,
welfare measure, Bheemesh principle, date of
death criterion, hand-to-mouth cases.
CASE ARISING FROM
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner - Shri Praveen Kumar Srivastava.
For Respondents - Shri Shad Khan and Shri
Shishir Prakash.

## Text

7 All. Sandhya Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
373
is not a degree of bachelor in medicine, a
requisite academic qualification under
Service Recruitment Rules , 2012. The
Court could have considered the prayer of
the petitioner and refer the matter to the
State Government for considering and
passing
appropriate
orders
regarding
equivalence qua bachelors in medicine
degree or for that matter to the Central
Government, but I find that there is no such
prayer made. I further find that this
selection pertains to the year 2014
advertisement, which has been completed.
Once selection process has come to an end,
now this Court cannot permit reopening of
selection at this stage.

32. Thus, petition lacks merit and is
accordingly dismissed.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 373
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 10.07.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Writ A No. 6617 of 2025

Smt. Babita Kumari @ Babita Devi
 ...Petitioner
Versus
U.P. Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Limited
& Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Praveen Kumar Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
Shad Khan, Shishir Prakash

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether
the
office
memorandum
dated
16.07.2024 pertaining to appointments on
compassionate grounds shall apply prospectively
or will operate retrospectively.
HEADNOTE
Service
Law
-
Compassionate
Appointment
-
Retrospective
or
Prospective Operation - Applicability of
Modified Scheme.

The office memorandum dated 16.07.2024
barred compassionate appointments on Class IV
posts and confined such appointments to Class
III posts only. Petitioner's husband, a Class IV
employee, died in harness on 22.10.2023.
Petitioner, qualified only for a Class IV post, had
applied in February 2024, before the issuance of
the memorandum.
Held:
By
barring
compassionate
ground
appointment on Class IV posts, the office
memorandum
dated
16.07.2024
effectively
precludes the said marginalized class of citizens
from
the
benefits
of
appointments
on
compassionate grounds. The interpretation as to
the applicability of a modified Scheme should
depend only upon a determinate and fixed
criteria such as the date of death and not an
indeterminate and variable factor. Hence, "the
office memorandum dated 16.07.2024 shall
apply prospectively and only to applications for
grant of compassionate appointments which
were filed after 16.07.2024. - Case of the
petitioner shall be covered by the earlier
provisions for grant of compassionate ground
appointments which permitted appointment on
Class IV posts. The office memorandum dated
16.07.2024 shall not be applicable to the case of
the petitioner. Writ petition allowed; matter
remitted to respondents to process appointment
within three months. (E-5)
CASE LAW CITED
The
Secretary
to
Government
(Department of Education - Primary) &
Ors. v. Bheemesh @ Bheemappa, Civil
Appeal No. 7752 of 2021; Canara Bank v.
Ajith Kumar G.K., 2025 SCC OnLine SC
290; Indian Bank v. Promila, (2020) 12
SCC
767;N.C.
Santhosh
v.
State
of
Karnataka, (2020) 7 SCC 617; State of
Madhya Pradesh v. Amit Shrivas, (2020)
10 SCC 496; State of Madhya Pradesh v.
Ashish Awasthi, (2021) 11 SCC 656.
ACTS REFERRED TO
374 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Constitution of India - Article 226.
Office Memorandum dated 16.07.2024 issued by
U.P. Rajya Vidyut Utpadan Nigam Ltd. regarding
compassionate appointments.
KEYWORDS
Compassionate
appointment,
retrospective
operation, prospective application, Class IV post,
marginalized dependants, poverty and illiteracy,
welfare measure, Bheemesh principle, date of
death criterion, hand-to-mouth cases.
CASE ARISING FROM
APPEARANCES
For Petitioner - Shri Praveen Kumar Srivastava.
For Respondents - Shri Shad Khan and Shri
Shishir Prakash.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot, J.)

1.
Heard
Shri
Praveen
Kumar
Srivastava,
learned
counsel
for
the
petitioner and Shri Shad Khan, learned
counsel for the respondent.

2. By the impugned order dated
22.04.2025, the claim of the petitioner for
grant of appointment on compassionate
grounds on Class IV post has been rejected.

3.
The
impugned
order
dated
22.04.2025 finds that the resolution of the
Board and the office memorandum of
16.07.2024 bars compassionate appointments
on Class IV posts, and confines such
appointments to Class III posts only. As per
the aforesaid circular/OM dated 16.07.2024
the said policy of barring appointments on
Class IV posts shall be applicable to the
pending applications as well. The impugned
order records that the application of the
petitioner for appointment on compassionate
ground was submitted prior to the aforesaid
office
memorandum
dated
16.07.2024.
However, since no administrative approval
for appointment of the petitioner was
forthcoming, her case shall be covered by the
office memorandum dated 16.07.2024. On
this footing the petitioner is not entitled to
appointment on a Class IV post. The
petitioner's
case
for
compassionate
appointment was accordingly declined by the
impugned order.

4. The husband of the petitioner died in
harness on 22.10.2023. The petitioner made
an application for grant of appointment on a
Class IV post on compassionate ground in
February, 2024. The office memorandum on
the footing barring appointments on Class IV
posts came into existence on 16.07.2024. The
petitioner is only qualified for appointment
on a Class IV post and does not possess
educational qualifications for appointment on
a Class III post.

5. The question which arises for
consideration in this case is whether the said
office
memorandum
dated
16.07.2024
pertaining to appointments on compassionate
grounds shall apply prospectively or will
operate retrospectively.

6. The issue regarding prospective or
retrospective application of schemes for
grant of appointment on compassionate
grounds arose for consideration before the
Supreme Court in The Secretary to Govt.
Department of Education (Primary) &
Ors. V. Bheemesh @ Bheemappa in Civil
Appeal No. 7752 of 2021. After noticing
the apparent divergence of views on the
issue,
the
Supreme
Court
in
Bheemesh(supra) held as under:

"16. It was only after the
aforesaid reference to a larger Bench that
this Court decided at least four cases,
respectively in (i) Indian Bank vs. Promila;
7 All. Sandhya Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
375
(ii) N.C. Santhosh vs. State of Karnataka;
(iii) State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Amit
Shrivas; and (iv) State of Madhya Pradesh
vs. Ashish Awasthi. Out of these four
decisions, N.C. Santosh (supra) was by a
three member Bench, which actually took
note of the reference pending before the
larger Bench.

17. Keeping the above in mind, if
we critically analyse the way in which this
Court has proceeded to interpret the
applicability of a new or modified Scheme
that comes into force after the death of the
employee, we may notice an interesting
feature. In cases where the benefit under
the existing Scheme was taken away or
substituted with a lesser benefit, this Court
directed the application of the new Scheme.
But in cases where the benefits under an
existing Scheme were enlarged by a
modified Scheme after the death of the
employee, this Court applied only the
Scheme that was in force on the date of
death
of
the
employee.
This
is
fundamentally
due
to
the
fact
that
compassionate appointment was always
considered to be an exception to the normal
method of recruitment and perhaps looked
down upon with lesser compassion for the
individual and greater concern for the rule
of law.

18. If compassionate appointment
is one of the conditions of service and is
made automatic upon the death of an
employee in harness without any kind of
scrutiny whatsoever, the same would be
treated as a vested right in law. But it is not
so. Appointment on compassionate grounds
is not automatic, but subject to strict
scrutiny of various parameters including
the financial position of the family, the
economic dependence of the family upon
the deceased employee and the avocation
of the other members of the family.
Therefore, no one can claim to have a
vested
right
for
appointment
on
compassionate grounds. This is why some
of the decisions which we have tabulated
above appear to have interpreted the
applicability
of
revised
Schemes
differently, leading to conflict of opinion.
Though there is a conflict as to whether the
Scheme in force on the date of death of the
employee would apply or the Scheme in
force on the date of consideration of the
application
of
appointment
on
compassionate grounds would apply, there
is certainly no conflict about the underlying
concern reflected in the above decisions.
Wherever the modified Schemes diluted the
existing benefits, this Court applied those
benefits,
but
wherever
the
modified
Scheme granted larger benefits, the old
Scheme was made applicable.

19. The important aspect about
the conflict of opinion is that it revolves
around two dates, namely, (i) date of death
of the employee; and

(ii) date of consideration of the
application of the dependant. Out of these
two dates, only one, namely, the date of
death alone is a fixed factor that does not
change. The next date namely the date of
consideration of the claim, is something
that depends upon many variables such as
the date of filing of application, the date of
attaining of majority of the claimant and
the date on which the file is put up to the
competent authority. There is no principle
of statutory interpretation which permits a
decision on the applicability of a rule, to be
based upon an indeterminate or variable
factor. Let us take for instance a
hypothetical case where 2 Government
servants die in harness on January 01,
2020. Let us assume that the dependants of
376 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
these 2 deceased Government servants
make applications for appointment on 2
different
dates
say
29.05.2020
and
02.06.2020 and a modified Scheme comes
into force on June 01, 2020. If the date of
consideration of the claim is taken to be the
criteria
for
determining
whether
the
modified Scheme applies or not, it will lead
to two different results, one in respect of
the person who made the application before
June 1, 2020 and another in respect of the
person who applied after June 01, 2020. In
other words, if two employees die on the
same date and the dependants of those
employees apply on two different dates,
one before the modified Scheme comes
into force and another thereafter, they will
come in for differential treatment if the date
of application and the date of consideration
of the same are taken to be the deciding
factor. A rule of interpretation which
produces different results, depending upon
what the individuals do or do not do, is
inconceivable.
This
is
why,
the
managements of a few banks, in the cases
tabulated above, have introduced a rule in
the modified scheme itself, which provides
for all pending applications to be decided
under the new/modified scheme. Therefore,
we are of the considered view that the
interpretation as to the applicability of a
modified Scheme should depend only upon
a determinate and fixed criteria such as the
date of death and not an indeterminate and
variable factor.

20. Coming to the case on hand,
the employee died on 8.12.2010 and the
amendment to the Rules was proposed by
way of a draft notification on 20.06.2012.
The final notification was issued on
11.07.2012. Merely because the application
for
appointment
was
taken
up
for
consideration after the issue of the
amendment, the respondent could not have
sought the benefit of the amendment. The
Judgment of the Division Bench of the
Karnataka
High
Court
in
Akkamahadevamma on which the Tribunal
as well as the High Court placed reliance,
was not applicable to the case of
compassionate
appointments,
as
the
amendment in Akkamahadevamma came
as a result of the existing rule being
declared to be ultra vires Articles 14 and 16
of the Constitution."

7.
The
modified
scheme
of
compassionate appointment introduced by
the office memorandum dated 16.07.2024
works to the detriment of the petitioner as it
restricts compassionate appointments to
Class III posts only. Class III posts
obviously require a higher level of
educational qualifications. Persons like the
petitioner at the bottom of the social heap
often live at the intersection of disabilities
like acute poverty and total illiteracy. Often
the said class of persons are only eligible
for appointment on Class IV posts. Further
these classes of citizenry are simply unable
to acquire higher qualifications for Class III
posts
due
to
their
socioeconomic
marginalization. By barring compassionate
ground appointment on Class IV posts the
office memorandum dated 16.07.2024
effectively precludes the said marginalized
class of citizens to which the petitioner
belongs from the benefits of appointments
on compassionate grounds.

8. Appointments on compassionate
grounds are a welfare measure mooted by
model employers primarily for the benefit
of the employees. The said beneficent
schemes particularly secure families of the
employees on lower category posts who
come from marginalized segments of the
society.
Compassionate
ground
appointments protect the said families
7 All. Sandhya Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
377
already reeling under the weight of social
inequities from the wages of financial
destitution and uncertain future after the
death of the earning member. The pre
16.07.2024
compassionate
ground
appointment scheme permitted appointment
on Class IV posts. Consequently the
dependents
of
deceased
employees
belonging to said marginalized classes
could freely access the welfare measures
contemplated in the earlier scheme for
compassionate appointment.

9. Under the office memorandum
dated 16.07.2024 even if additional time is
given to acquire higher qualifications for
appointment to Class III posts, the same
will be an exercise in futility. The low
educational levels of the petitioner and
utter financial destitution render acquisition
of higher qualifications in any reasonable
time virtually impossible. The direction in
the
impugned
order
permitting
the
petitioner to acquire higher qualifications
for Class III appointment is redundant
being impossible to achieve, and seeks to
cloak the actual denial of the benefit of
compassionate
appointment
to
the
petitioner. The petitioner is only eligible for
appointment on a Class IV post.

10. The regime of compassionate
ground appointments in the respondent
Corporation existing prior to the office
memorandum/circular dated 16.07.2024
which permitted appointment on Class IV
posts on compassionate grounds was more
beneficial to the petitioner who belongs to
the marginalized section of the society and
is weighed down by other disabilities like
lack of literacy and extreme poverty.

11. In light of the judgement rendered
by the Supreme Court in Bheemesh @
Bheemappa(supra),
the
office
memorandum dated 16.07.2024 shall apply
prospectively and only to applications for
grant
of
compassionate
appointments
which were filed after 16.07.2024. The case
of the petitioner shall be covered by the
earlier
provisions
for
grant
of
compassionate ground appointments which
permitted appointment on Class IV posts.
The office memorandum dated 16.07.2024
shall not be applicable to the case of the
petitioner.

12. There is another facet to the
matter.
The
compassionate
ground
appointments
are
a
welfare
measure
intended to enable the family of the
deceased employee to immediately tide
over the sudden financial crisis caused by
the death of the earning member.

13. The object sought to be achieved
by granting compassionate appointments
was enunciated by the Supreme Court in
Canara Bank v.
Ajithkumar
G.K.
reported at 2025 SCC OnLine SC 290 as
follows:

"29.
The
second
sub-issue
pertains to the real objective sought to be
achieved
by
offering
compassionate
appointment.
We
have
noticed
the
objectives of the scheme of 1993 and
construe such objectives as salutary for
deciding any claim for compassionate
appointment. The underlying idea behind
compassionate appointment in death-inharness cases appears to be that the
premature and unexpected passing away of
the employee, who was the only bread
earner for the family, leaves the family
members in such penurious condition that
but for an appointment on compassionate
ground, they may not survive. There cannot
be
a
straitjacket
formula
applicable
uniformly to all cases of employees dying-
378 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in-harness
which
would
warrant
appointment on compassionate grounds.
Each case has its own peculiar features and is
required to be dealt with bearing in mind the
financial condition of the family. It is only in
"hand-to-mouth" cases that a claim for
compassionate appointment ought to be
considered and granted, if at all other
conditions are satisfied. Such "hand-to-mouth"
cases would include cases where the family of
the deceased is 'below poverty line' and
struggling to pay basic expenses such as food,
rent, utilities, etc., arising out of lack of any
steady source of sustenance. This has to be
distinguished from a mere fall in standard of
life arising out of the death of the bread
earner."

14. Class IV appointments made on
compassionate grounds satisfy the aforesaid
tests laid down in Ajithkumar G.K.(supra)
more creditably than appointments on higher
posts.

15. The authorities below misdirected
themselves in law by applying the office
memorandum dated 16.07.2024 to the case of
the petitioner even though she is liable to be
considered under the previous scheme for
appointment on a Class IV post on
compassionate grounds.

16.
The
impugned
order
dated
22.04.2025 is liable to be set aside and is set
aside.

17. The petitioner is held entitled to be
considered for appointment on Class IV post
on compassionate ground.

18. Matter is remitted to the respondents
to process the appointment of the petitioner
within a period of three months and pass
appropriate
orders
consistent
with
the
observations made in this judgement.

19. The writ petition is allowed.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 378
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 03.07.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH SINGH CHAUHAN, J.

Writ A No. 6678 of 2023
&
Connected With Other Cases

Sanjay Kumar Chaurasiya & Ors.
 ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Vikas Yadav, Shivam Srivastava, Utkarsh
Misra

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Madhukar Ojha, Nishant Shukla,
Satya Prakash, Shikhar Srivastava

ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION
Whether contractual employees engaged as
Arogya Mitra / Prime Minister Arogya Mitra
(PMAM) under the Ayushman Bharat-Prime
Minister Jan Arogya Yojna (AB-PMJAY) have a
right to get their contract necessarily renewed
and also as to whether their rights would be
governed by the terms of the project/contract or
otherwise and whether the policy of outsourcing
such engagements is open to judicial review.

HEADNOTE
Contract Employment - Outsourcing -
Ayushman Bharat Scheme - No Right to
Renewal - Fraud on the Court - Judicial
Review of Policy - Dismissed
Petitioners were contractual employees
engaged between 2017-2018 as Arogya
Mitra
under
the
Central
Project
"Ayushman Bharat-Prime Minister Jan
Arogya
Yojna
(AB-PMJAY)".
Their
contracts were for fixed terms and were
not renewed. They challenged order dated