# Smt. Deepika Tiwari v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2026) 4 ILRA 324
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2026-04-24
- **Case number:** Special Appeal No. 353 of 2025
- **Bench:** Rajan Roy, Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-deepika-tiwari-v-state-of-u-p-ors-54504
- **Pages:** 12

## Text

_Characters 0–39,932 of 42,077. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39932 for what follows._

324 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2026) 4 ILRA 324
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 24.04.2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
THE HON'BLE ABDHESH KUMAR CHAUDHARY, J.

Special Appeal No. 353 of 2025

Smt. Deepika Tiwari ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
(1) Ambit of terms 'member of family' to include 'widowed daughter-in-law' in respect of the matter of
granting compassionate appointment.
(2) Entitlement of 'widowed daughter-in-law', who was not 'daughter-in-law' at the time of dying in harness of
the deceased government servant, to get compassionate appointment.

Headnotes
(A) Service law - Compassionate appointment - Entitlement of widowed daughter-in-law -
Earlier claim was rejected on the ground that the father-in-law was drawing the pension, which
was set aside by the High Court remanding the matter to be decided as fresh - Now the
appointment, as proposed by the Regional Committee, was cancelled by D.I.O.S. holding her not
dependent of the Govt. employee - Challenged in Writ petition - Writ petition was dismissed
holding that the death of the Government employee, having occurred prior to even the appellant
having been married with her son would take away the appellant from the ambit of 'member of
family' as defined in Regulation 103 of the Regulations on the date of such death - Validity
challenged - Ambit of the word 'family' and relevancy of 'date of becoming widow' felt into
consideration: (E-1)
Held: The term 'widowed daughter-in-law' as being included in the definition of members of family, is eligible
per se for compassionate appointment as a teacher in the trained graduate category or on a non-teaching
post, in the case of a deceased government employee, who died in harness - The legislature in its wisdom did
not find a 'daughter-in-law' to be eligible for compassionate appointment, however, in contrast found a
widowed daughter-in-law to be eligible, for a simple reason that in common parlance the wife (read daughterin-law) is dependent on her husband (read son) for maintenance etc. [Para 19 and 20]
Further held: The date of being widow is a relevant factor to include a 'widowed daughter-in-law' within the
definition of "family", so as to make her eligible to claim appointment on compassionate ground under the
Regulations - The appellant has no right to claim any employment as a 'widowed daughter-in-law' because for
her not being even a 'daughter-in-law' at the time of dying in harness of the deceased government servant,
nor she could claim any right due to happening of a subsequent event of she being a 'widowed daughter-inlaw', as she does not fall into the definition of 'member of family' as contemplated under Regulations 103.
[Para 25 and 33]

Case Law Cited
Kumari Farha Naseem vs. State Of U.P. and Others, 2024:AHC:154724; Special Appeal Def. No. 73 of 2016,
Kr. Vanshika Nigam vs. State Of U.P. and Others; U.P Power Corporation Urban Electricity Transmission
Division-II, Allahabad vs. Urmila Devi, 2011 (3) ADJ 432; Vibha Tiwari vs. State of U.P & Others,
2024:AHC:49953-DB; Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138; Director Of Education
4 All. Smt. Deepika Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
325
(Secondary) & Anr vs. Pushpendra Kumar & Others, (1998) 5 SCC 192; Union of India vs. B. Kishore, (2011)
13 SCC 131; Bihar Industrial Area Development Authority & Ors. vs. M/s Scope Sales Pvt. Ltd. & Anr., 2026
INSC 89 - referred to.

List of Acts
Regulations 103 to 107, issued under Section 16G of Chapter III of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921;
Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 -Rule 2 (c).

List of Keywords
Compassionate appointment, Died in harness, Competent authority, Pension, 'Widowed daughter-in-law',
Appointment, Member of family, Dependent, Qualification, Humanitarian approach, Liberal interpretation,
Eligibility, Vested right, Grace, Financial hardship, Poverty, Ground of sympathy, Immediate support, Mutual
dependency, Shared vulnerability, Sudden death, Protective discrimination, Perversity.

Case Arising From
Judgment and order dated 18.09.2025 passed in Writ A No. 10799 of 2025, Smt. Deepika Tiwari vs. State of
U.P. and others.

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant: Sanjay Misra.
Advs. for the Respondents: Ms. Isha Mittal (ACSC), Mudit Agarwal.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary, J.)

1. The present Special Appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Chapter VIII, Rule 5
of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 interdicting an order dated 18.09.2025, passed by the
learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ-A No. 10799 of 2025 (Smt. Deepika Tiwari versus State
of U.P. and others), whereby her claim for compassionate appointment in the capacity of a
widowed daughter-in-law of the deceased government employee was dismissed.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, admittedly one Smt. Sangeeta Bajpayee was working as an
Assistant Teacher in Nari Shiksha Niketan Inter College, Chakbast Road, District Lucknow and she
died in harness on 23.04.2021. The said Smt. Sangeeta Bajpayee was survived by two legal heirs
namely (i) Uday Bhan Bajpayee - husband, who was a pensioner from U.P.P.C.L. and (ii) Nikhil
Bajpayee - Son and unemployed.

3. After around two years, Nikhil Bajpayee, the son of the deceased government employee,
filed an application staking his claim for appointment on compassionate ground vide his application
dated 09.02.2023 and records reveal that the said application came to be rejected by the competent
authority on 10th of April, 2023 on the ground that his father (husband of the deceased Sangeeta
Bajpayee) was a pensioner in U.P.P.C.L.

4. In the interregnum, the son of the deceased Government employee, i.e. Nikhil Bajpayee
married the appellant on 15th February 2023.

5. Unfortunately, Sri Nikhil Bajpayee left for his heavenly abode on 13th of May, 2023 and
admittedly by that date he did not challenge his rejection to be appointed on compassionate ground
and as such the said order of rejection has till date remained unchallenged.
326 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

6. Subsequently, the appellant vide an Application dated 04.06.2024 staked her claim for
compassionate appointment in the capacity of being the 'widowed daughter-in-law' of Late
Sangeeta Bajpayee, however, her stake was rejected by the competent authority, leading to filing of
a Writ Petition No. 4738 of 2024 (say First Writ Petition). A Single bench of this Court vide an
order dated 19.06.2024, disposed of the said petition by directing the respondents to consider the
representation of the appellant, which came to be rejected vide an order dated 10.10.2024 primarily
on the ground that her father-in-law i.e. husband of the deceased government employee Late
Sangeeta Bajpayee, was drawing pension from U.P.P.C.L.

7. Obviously, the appellant was not happy with the said rejection order and as such laid her
challenge before this Court in Writ-A No. 10461 of 2024 (say second Writ Petition), wherein
Single Judge of this Court, while quashing the said order of rejection directed the competent
authority to consider the claim of the Appellant afresh, keeping in view the judgment of Kumari
Farha Naseem V/s State Of U.P. And Others (Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:154724) and Kr.
Vanshika Nigam versus State Of U.P. And Others (SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 73
of 2016) of this Court, which held that claim for compassionate appointment may not be rejected
merely because of one of the spouses is drawing pension and also held that the adequacy of the
means and resources available and the issue of dependency have to be considered by the competent
authority, while granting or rejecting the claim of compassionate appointment.

8. The Respondent No.3 (D.I.O.S.), in view of the aforesaid direction of this Court,
reconsidered the application of the petitioner and as such issued an appointment order dated 23rd of
May, 2025 followed by a correct version on 29th of May, 2025 wherein the Appellant/petitioner
came to be appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher (Zoology) on the basis of a report by the
Regional Committee, apparently based on provisions of Regulations 103 to 107, issued under
Section 16G of Chapter 3 of U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921.

9. Some directions were also issued by the Respondent No. 3 to Respondent No. 4 (the
Institution) for allowing the Appellant/petitioner to join on the post of Assistant Teacher, after
verifying the original documents. However, it seems the Institution raised objections dated
16.06.2025 to her appointment, as according to them, the Appellant was not the dependent of the
Government employee- Smt. Sangeeta Bajpayee, leading to cancellation of her appointment by the
D.I.O.S. (Respondent No.3) vide his letter dated 21.08.2025.

10. It is this cancellation, which led to filing of Writ Petition No. 10799/2025 (Third Writ
Petition), wherein the learned Single Judge, while dismissing the plea of the Appellant held vide
the impugned order dated 18.09.2025 that the death of the Government employee, Late Sangeeta
Bajpayee having occurred prior to even the appellant having been married with her son would take
away the Appellant from the ambit of 'member of family' as defined in Regulation 103 of the
Regulations on the date of such death.

11. It is this order, which has been impugned in the present Special Appeal.
4 All. Smt. Deepika Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
327

12. Heard Shri Sanjay Misra, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Isha Mittal, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State, as well as Shri Mudit Agarwal counsel for the
respondent No.4- Institution.

13. It has been submitted that the appellant having been married after the death of her Late
mother-in-law is wholly irrelevant and the findings are contrary to the amended Regulation
Number 103, which expressly includes 'widow daughter-in-law' within the ambit of dependence,
eligible for compassionate appointment. The learned Counsel in order to buttress his argument has
relied on the full bench judgment of this Court in the case of U.P Power Corporation Urban
Electricity Transmission Division-II, Allahabad Vs Urmila Devi; reported in 2011 (3) ADJ 432;
to submit that a widowed daughter-in-law has been casted into the definition of family, so as to
make her entitle for compassionate ground. It is vehemently argued by the learned Counsel that
Regulations 103 explicitly includes 'widow daughter-in-law' without qualification of date of
marriage and keeping in view the humanitarian object of compassionate appointment the present
Appeal may be allowed.

14. It has been further submitted that a liberal interpretation has to be given to the word
'widow daughter-in-law' so as to protect the dependent widows from destitution. It is the
submission of the learned Counsel that the learned Single Judge by adopting a hyper-technical
approach has frustrated the legislative intent of Regulations 103, without taking a humanitarian
approach and failed to understand that in fact, the appellant had stepped into the shoes of her
husband, who was very much eligible to be appointed on compassionate ground. In order to
highlight his argument that a liberal interpretation ought to be given to the word 'family', he has
referred to a judgment of coordinate Division bench of this Court in the case of Vibha Tiwari V/s
State of U.P & Others; (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC:49953-DB) to submit that a liberal approach
has to be taken by this Court in cases for compassionate appointment as in this case, although the
definition of 'family' did not specifically contain 'daughter-in-law', however this Court considered
the case of a daughter-in-law, for giving her appointment on compassionate appointment, keeping
in view the circumstances of that case that the son was under some disability. Thus, it has been
submitted that since the appellant is well qualified and having no source of income, the denial of
her appointment amounts to overlooking the Constitutional mandate of a welfare State.

15. Per contra, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel, Ms. Isha Mittal has supported
the impugned judgment and submitted that the learned Single Judge has painstakingly given a
detailed judgment after discussing the relevant Regulations and the impugned order is a well
reasoned and plausible order and does not requires any interference in this intra-court Appeal. She
has relied on the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of
Haryana reported in 1994 (4) SCC 138; to explain the object and purpose behind any appointment
made under compassionate grounds. According to her, none of the grounds exists for grating any
relief to the Appellant. It has been also submitted by her that the family of Late Sangeeta Bajpayee
did not face any immediate financial crisis and had been sustaining itself even after her demise
from the pensions drawn by the husband from his erstwhile employer - U.P.P.C.L. As far as the
appellant was concerned it has been argued that she was not even a member of the family of the
deceased at the time of her death and therefore, was not covered under the definition of 'family'
under the Rules and therefore, was not entitled to the benefit of to be appointed on compassionate
328 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
grounds. According to the learned Counsel, the present Appeal as being devoid of any merits may
be dismissed.

16. Mr. Mudit Aggarwal, learned Counsel for the Nari Shiksha Niketan Inter College, has
submitted that the Appellant is not covered under the definition of 'family' as defined under Rule 2
(c) of The Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness
Rules, 1974, and therefore, was not entitled for seeking appointment as family member in place of
Late Smt. Sangeeta Bajpayee. According to him, the Legal Heir Certificate which was issued by
the District Magistrate, Lucknow on 23.06.2021, listed only two Legal Heir namely, the husband
and son of the deceased. According to him, it is on the basis of the said Legal Heir Certificate, that
Nikhil Bajpayee, the son of the deceased government employee, claimed for his appointment on
compassionate ground. It has been further submitted that the order of rejection dated 10.04.2023
was never challenged by Mr. Nikhil Bajpayee or even by the petitioner till date and for all intents
and purposes the order dated 10.04.2023 decided the issue of compassionate appointment of legal
heir of Late Sangeeta Bajpayee has attained finality. According to the learned Counsel, the orders
passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court in the earlier two writ petitions were merely for
deciding the representation and were innocuous in nature, as it did not adjudicate any rights of the
appellant.

17. This Court has given an anxious thought to the various rival submission of the parties and
this Court is of the view that the primary question, which falls for consideration in this intra-court
Appeal would be :-

'Whether the date of being widow is a relevant factor to include a 'widowed daughter-inlaw' within the definition of 'family', so as to make her eligible to claim appointment in
compassionate ground under the Regulations?'

18. Before this Court embarks on a journey to determine the aforesaid issue, it would be
pertinent to first enumerate the relevant Regulations relating to compassionate appointment as is
founded in Regulations 103 to 107, issued under Section 16G of Chapter-III of U.P Intermediate
Education Act, 1921. Since, these regulations have been already translated and extracted by the
learned Single Judge in the impugned order, it would be advantageous to borrow and quote the
same as herein below:

103- In case an employee, whether a teaching or non-teaching staff member, of a
recognized aided institution (including a minority institution), who has been duly appointed
following the prescribed procedure, dies in harness and the husband or wife (as the case may be)
of the deceased employee 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 then one member of his/her 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 and who is not below 18 years of age, may be appointed either
as a teacher in the Trained Graduate category or on a non-teaching post, if such person:-

(One) fulfills the educational or training qualifications prescribed for the post,
4 All. Smt. Deepika Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
329

Provided further that if appointment is made to such a post for which Computer
Operation and Typing has been prescribed as a mandatory qualification and the dependent of the
deceased employee does not possess the requisite proficiency in Computer Operation and Typing
then he shall be appointed to the post subject to the condition that within one year he shall obtain
the CCC Certificate in Computer Operation awarded by DOEACC Society or any other certificate
recognized by the Government equivalent thereto and also attain the required speed of 25 words
per minute in Hindi typing and 30 words per minute in English typing, and if he fails to do so, his
general annual increment shall be withheld and an additional period of one year shall be granted
to acquire the requisite certificate in Computer Operation and the required typing speed, and if,
even within the extended period, he fails to acquire the required certificate in Computer Operation
and required typing speed, his services shall be terminated.

(Two) is otherwise qualified for government service.

Explanation:- For the purposes of this Regulation, the term (c) members of the family of
the deceased Government servant shall include the following relatives:

(i) Wife or husband;

(ii) Son or adopted son;

(iii) Daughters, (including adopted daughter) and widow daughter-in-law;

(iv) deceased Government servant's dependent unmarried brother, unmarried sister and
widow mother, if the deceased Government servant was unmarried

(v) the aforementioned relatives of a missing Government servant who has been declared
dead by a competent court.

"Provided that if no person from among the aforementioned relatives of the deceased
Government servant is available or if such a person is found to be physically or mentally
unsuitable and thus be ineligible for appointment under Government service, then, only in such a
case, the term family shall also include the dependent grandsons and unmarried granddaughters of
the deceased Government servant."

104. Within seven days of the occurrence of death, the Management or the Principal or
the Headmaster, as the case may be, of the recognized aided institution shall submit a report to the
Inspector which shall include the name of the deceased employee, the post held, the pay scale, the
date of appointment, the date of death, the name of the appointing institution and the names of the
members of his/her family along with their educational qualification, age etc. The Inspector shall
record the particulars of the deceased employee in a register maintained by him.

105. A member of the family of the deceased employee, as specified in Regulation 104,
shall submit an application to the concerned Inspector for appointment according to the
qualification, either to the post of Assistant Teacher or to a post in non-teaching cadre. The
Committee shall consider the application and after the Committee recommends his appointment,
the application shall be forwarded to the Management or the Principal or Headmaster, as the case
may be, of the institution where the applicant is to be appointed in accordance with the provisions
of Regulation 106, for issuance of the appointment order. The committee shall include the
following:

1- District Inspector of Schools - Chairman

2- Finance and Accounts officer, (Secondary Education) - Member

3- Senior-most Principal, Government Inter College/ Government Girl's Inter College -
Member
330 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

Provided that where the dependent of the deceased employee applies for appointment
after the expiry of five years from the date of death and the State Government is satisfied that an
undue hardship arises in a particular case due to prescribed time limit for making an application
for employment, it may exempt or relax such requirements as it deems necessary to proceed in that
case in a just and equitable manner:

Provided further that for the purpose of aforementioned proviso, the concerned person
shall explain the reasons and furnish adequate justification in writing for the delay in applying for
appointment after expiry of the prescribed time limit, along with necessary documents/evidence in
support of such delay and the Government shall take appropriate decision after considering all
facts related to the reasons of delay.

106. The appointment of a family member of the deceased employee shall, so far as
possible, be made in the same institution where the deceased employee was serving at the time of
his death. If there be no vacancy of Assistant Teacher or in non-teaching cadre in such institution
then he shall be appointed in any other recognized aided institution of the district where such
vacancy is available.

Provided that if no such vacancy exists in any recognized aided institution of the
concerned district at that time then the case shall be referred to the Divisional Committee by the
District Committee and the dependent of the deceased employee shall be appointed against a
vacancy available in the Division.

Provided further that if no post be vacant at the Division level or if the dependent of the
deceased employee seeks appointment in another Division then the case shall be referred to the
Directorate, where it shall be considered by a Committee constituted at the Directorate level
consisting the following:

1 Additional Director of Education (Secondary) Chairman

2 Joint Director of Education (Finance) Member

3 Deputy Director of Education (Secondary 2/ Secondary 3) Member

In the event of concurrence, following consideration by the Committee constituted at the
Directorate level, the concerned District Committee shall be authorized to make appointment
against the vacancy reported from the districts.

107. The recognized aided institution, to which the application has been forwarded by the
Inspector for issuance of the appointment order, shall issue the appointment letter within one
month from the date of receipt of application and inform the Inspector. If the appointment letter is
not issued by the inspector within the prescribed period without reasonable grounds, the Director
of Education shall take appropriate action against the Inspector on receipt of representation.

19. A facial reading of the aforesaid Regulation 103, leaves no doubt in mind that the term
widowed daughter-in-law as being included in the definition of members of family, is eligible per
se for compassionate appointment as a teacher in the trained graduate category or on a non-teaching
post, in the case of a deceased government employee, who died in harness. However, the issue
engaging the attention of this Court in the present Appeal and as also framed herein above is not to
determine the eligibility of a widowed daughter-in-law for compassionate appointment, but to
examine as to whether there is any relevancy of the date of becoming a widow of the said daughterin-law and its effect.
4 All. Smt. Deepika Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
331

20. The aforesaid issue gains prominence in the light of the fact that the phrase daughter-inlaw is conspicuously absent from the definition of member of family juxtaposed with the phrase
widowed daughter-in-law , which has been very well mentioned and made eligible. Thus, in a way
the legislature in its wisdom did not find a daughter-in-law to be eligible for compassionate
appointment, however, in contrast found a widowed daughter-in-law to be eligible, for a simple
reason that in common parlance the wife (read daughter-in-law) is dependent on her husband (read
son) for maintenance etc. and therefore, there was no requirement of naming the daughter-in-law
also in the definition of member of family . Apparently, since son (read husband) has been made
eligible as a member of family under the regulations, who can apply for compassionate
appointment, it has purposely left out the daughter-in-law (read wife), however, the regulations
contemplating an eventuality that, in case the son (read husband) has predeceased the government
servant, who died in harness, has specifically mentioned the widow daughter-in-law (read wife of
the deceased son) as a member of the family , so as to make her eligible for compassionate
appointment. This analogy not only seems to be more logical and bonafide but also is in tandem
with the ambitious humanitarian object behind any compassionate appointment under the
Regulations.

21. According to this Court, when the son (read husband) is alive of a government employee,
who died in harness, it is the son only and not the daughter-in-law, who is eligible to seek
compassionate appointment. However, only in case the son predeceased the government servant,
who died in harness, a widowed daughter-in-law, in absence of her husband would be eligible for
compassionate employment. Further the phrase daughter-in-law is a status condition precedent of
the phrase widowed daughter-in-law , in as much as to put it plainly, in order to gain the status of a
widowed daughter-in-law , the said person has to first be a daughter-in-law .

22. There is another aspect of the matter, in as much as Regulations 104 in clear terms entails
that within seven days of the occurrence of the death of the government employee, the institution
concerned, ought to submit a report to the Inspector. As to what should the report contains, the said
Regulations in no uncertain terms says that it should also include the names of members of his/her
family along with their education, age, etc. Admittedly, since the Appellant (as she was not a
widowed daughter-in-law ) did not existed even remotely within the said stipulated time of seven
days from the death of Sangeeta Bajpayee on 23.04.2021, there was no question of her name being
included in the names of members of family of the deceased government servant. Further, this
Court finds that the said Regulation has a purpose, because the concerned authority were required
to take a call as to who are the dependent and most importantly to see their age and education, so
that commensurate employment can be provided to the dependent, in order to tide over the sudden
financial crisis and provide some kind of solace to the family member, at least economically, if not
emotionally at this trying time. The exposition of law is required to be understood from the
perspective that compassionate appointment is not a vested right but an act of grace, intended to
provide a succour and alleviate the financial hardship of the family of the deceased government
servant immediately after his/her death. Appointment on compassionate ground is a welfare
measure and not a mode of employment, so as to create a vested right, as is wrongly tried to be
contended by the learned Counsel for the Appellant.
332 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

23. It must be understood that the object underlying the provision for grant of compassionate
employment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis,
resulting due to death of the bread earner who has left the family in poverty and without any means
of livelihood, although technically and normally this employment on the ground of sympathy is
unconstitutional and hit by Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. However, time and again
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that behind this kind of compassionate appointment, the
object is not to give appointment but to extend the financial support. It is settled that the underlying
idea is to make sure that in cases of distress of a family of a deceased employee, immediate support
is provided to mitigate hardship. The said object and scope has been very well articulated by a
decision of three Judge bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Director Of Education
(Secondary) & Anr vs Pushpendra Kumar & Others; reported in 1998 (5) SCC 192; wherein
interestingly, the Hon'ble Apex Court was considering an issue relating to appointment on
compassionate grounds of dependents of teaching/non-teaching staff employed in non-Government
recognized aided schools and intermediate colleges in the State of Uttar Pradesh who have died in
harness under the aforesaid Regulations, which is subject matter of the present intra-court Appeal.
The Apex Court observed as follows:

 .....The object underlying a provision for grant of compassionate employment is to enable the
family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread
earner which has left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. Out of pure
humanitarian consideration and having regard to 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 for giving
gainful appointment to one of the dependents of the deceased who may be eligible for such
appointment. Such a provision makes a departure from the general provisions providing for
appointment on the post by following a particular procedure. Since such a provision enables
appointment being made without following the said procedure, it is in the nature of an exception to
the general provisions. An exception cannot subsume the main provision to which it is an exception
and thereby nullify the main provision by taking away completely the right conferred by the main
provision. Care has, therefore, to be taken that a provision for grant of compassionate employment,
which is in the nature of an exception to the general provisions, does not unduly interfere with the
right of other persons who are eligible for appointment of seek employment against the post which
would have been available to them, but for the provision enabling appointment being made on
compassionate grounds of the dependent of a deceased employee. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State
of Haryana, 1994 (4) SCC 138, this Court has taken note of the object underlying the rules
providing for appointment on compassionate grounds and has held that 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

24. Given the aforesaid object and the Regulations applicable in the present case, admittedly,
the Appellant was not a member of the family, nor was a person who was dependent on the
deceased government employee, who died in harness, on the date of her death i.e. 23.04.2021. As a
matter of fact, she was not even born in the family unit and came to be transplanted only on her
marriage to the son of the deceased government servant, only subsequently on 15.02.2023. Thus,
technically while the government servant was alive and on the date of her death, the appellant was
4 All. Smt. Deepika Tiwari Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
333
not even her daughter-in-law and therefore, no question arises of her being the widowed daughterin-law , so as to claim compassionate appointment on the death of her mother-in-law.

25. Thus, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the date of being widow is a relevant
factor to include a widowed daughter-in-law within the definition of family , so as to make her
eligible to claim appointment on compassionate ground under the Regulations.

26. As far as the present case is concerned, it is available from records that the governments
servant (Late Smt. Sangeeta Bajpayee) died in harness on 23.04.2021 and the Legal Heir Certificate
dated 23.06.2021, issued by the District Magistrate enlisted merely two legal heirs of Late Sangeeta
Bajpayee, namely (i) Shri Udai Bhan Bajpayee- Husband and (ii) Shri Nikhil Bajpayee -Son. The
Appellant came to be introduced in the family only after 22 months on 15.02.2023, by her marriage
to Shri Nikhil Bajpayee, the son of Late Sangeeta Bajpayee. Thus, on the date of the death of Late
Smt. Sangeeta Bajpayee, the Appellant was admittedly not even her daughter-in-law .

27. As aforesaid, the Appellant gained the status of daughter-in-law only on 15.02.2023 and
even then she did not gain any entry into the definition of member of family as contemplated in
Regulation 103 and it is for this very reason that it was Mr. Nikhil Bajpayee, the son of Late Smt.
Sangeeta Bajpayee applied for compassionate Appointment, which came to be rejected on
10.04.2023.

28. Record reveals that Mr. Nikhil Bajpayee left for his heavenly abode on 13.05.2023 and it
was on his dying that the Appellant gained the status of widowed daughter-in-law and thus, found
her entry into the definition of member of family .

29. Thus, the Appellant acquired the status of a widowed daughter-in-law only on 13.05.2023
on the basis of at least two subsequent events (i.e. the marriage and then, the death of Mr. Nikhi
Bajpayee) and was not in existence as on the death of Late Sangeeta Bajpayee on 23.04.2021.

30. The term member of family found in explanation to Regulations 103 has to be necessarily
interpreted to mean those members, who existed as a dependent at the time of the death of the
government servant, who dies in harness, for in the view of this Court these members together
constitute a composite family unit, bound by mutual dependency and shared vulnerability and the
sole purpose for granting compassionate appointment to eligible family member is to provide a
succor to this family unit, who are brought into a vulnerable situation by the sudden death of the
government employee. It must be understood that this appointment is not conferred to the
concerned member of the family unit because of her personal entitlement earned through merit or
competitive examination or for that matter of acquiring some status subsequently in the family as is
being sought to be done in the present case, but as a necessary concomitant to the sudden death of
the person on whom the entire family including the person seeking employment on compassionate
ground dependent.

31. Since, the Appellant was not even a member of the family unit, there is no question of her
being dependent on Late Sangeeta Bajpayee at the time of her death.
334 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

32. Further, Regulation 105 entails that the dependent of the deceased government servant has
to make an application to the concerned Inspector seeking appointment as per his/her qualification,
which had to be considered in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 106 by the Committee.
In the present case, the appellant could not have applied as per the said Regulation, as she never
existed in the family at that point of time, nor was she a dependent nor was she a daughter-in-law,
what to talk of a widowed daughter-in-law. According to this Court, it was only the son of the
deceased government employee, who was eligible to seek appointment on compassionate ground,
which as per the records had applied, but the same came to be rejected on 10.04.2023 and
admittedly, no challenge had been made of the said rejection either by the son of the deceased, who
passed away on 13.05.2023 or the present Appellant and as such as has been rightly pointed by the
learned Counsel for the Respondent-State that the issue relating to compassionate appointment for
dying in harness of Late Smt. Sangeeta Bajpayee stands closed vide the rejection order dated
10.04.2023 and has attained finality. Thus, this Court is unable to countenance as to when the
husband of the appellant was found to be not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground,
how can the wife (Appellant) be held to be eligible for the same, keeping in view that the claim of
being the widowed daughter-in-law flows from the son of the deceased only.

33. This Court finds that the appellant has no right to claim any employment as a widowed
daughter-in-law because for her not being even a daughter-in-law at the time of dying in harness of
the deceased government servant, nor she could claim any right due to happening of a subsequent
event of she being a widowed daughter-in-law , as she does not fall into the definition of member
of family as contemplated under Regulations 103. Time and again the Courts have held that
compassionate appointment has to be made as per the Rules. In the absence of any specific Rules of
claiming as a dependent and a member of family on the basis of some subsequent event, this Court
is unable to subscribe to the views and claim of the Appellant for compassionate appointment.

34. Moreover, it has to be also understood that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Union of India v. B. Kishore; reported in (2011) 13 SCC 131; reiterated that indigence of the
dependents of the deceased employee is the fundamental condition to be satisfied under any
scheme for appointment on compassionate ground and that if such indigence is not proved, grant of
relief in furtherance of protective discrimination would result in a sort of reservation for the
dependents of the employee dying-in-harness, thereby directly conflicting with the ideal of equality
guaranteed under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. In the present case, admittedly the
Government Servant died in harness on 23.04.2021 and the Appellant came to be married to her
son on 15.02.2023, thus, this Court finds sufficient force in the argument advanced by the learned
Counsel for the institution that the very fact that the marriage was solemnized after two years of the
death of the government servant, sufficiently indicates that there was no immediate financial
crunch or crisis in the family as the dependent-son Mr. Nikhil Bajpayee not only sustained himself
ably after the demise of her mother but also entered into a marriage, which in itself entails
significant expenditure. Thus, even the ground of indigence of the dependents of the deceased
government employee seems to be eluding and not available to the Appellant in the present facts
and circumstances.

35. This Court does not find any viable ground to interfere in the matter as the view taken by
the learned Single Judge seems to be a plausible and reasonable view, as it does not suffer from any
4 All. M/s Waheguru Projects Pvt. Ltd. Lko. Vs. M/s Arora Auto Center Lko.
335
perversity. The learned Single Judge has not missed the woods for the tree in deciding the right of
the Appellant, while taking a detailed analysis of the relevant Regulations applicable for
compassionate appointment. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Bihar Industrial
Area Development Authority & Ors. V/s M/s SCOPE Sales Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.; reported as 2026
INSC 89; vide judgment and order dated 23.01.2026 has held as follows:

 13.