# State of U.P. & Ors v. Pooja Singh Opp. Party

- **Citation:** (2021) 11 ILRA 1063
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-01-20
- **Case number:** Spl Appl. (D) No. 660 of 2021
- **Bench:** Rajesh Bindal, C.J. Piyush Agrawal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/state-of-u-p-ors-v-pooja-singh-opp-party-46476
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Law
-
Compassionate
Appointment
-
U.P.
Recruitment
of
Dependents of Government Servants Dying
in Harness Rules, 1974 - Rule 2(c)(iii) - This
Court has held that exclusion of married
daughter from the ambit of expression of
"family" as defined u/Rule 2(c) of the Rules
is
illegal
and
unconstitutional.
Meaning
thereby, even married daughters are eligible
for appointment on compassionate basis,
and hence, cannot be treated ineligible, as such,
as this Court has not framed any law rather has
merely declared the law. (Para 10)

B. No concealment of fact - When the
respondent
filed
application
seeking
compassionate appointment, she was not married
as she is stated to have married on December 01,
2001 whereas the application for compassionate
appointment was filed on October 13, 1999.
Hence, it is not a case of concealment of fact
in the application filed by the respondent.
(Para 7, 8)

Considering the fact that the respondent is in
service for the last more than 15 years and, there
was no concealment of fact as such in the
application filed by her seeking compassionate
appointment,
no
ground
is
made
out
for
interference. (Para 11)

Appeal dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

## Text

11 All. State of U.P. & Ors. Vs. Pooja Singh
1063
not open for the Authorities to have taken a
different view on the same set of facts.

17. It is also not disputed that the sole
ground of passing the order dated 31.08.2019 is
the alleged non-disclosure of the criminal case.

18. In view of the aforesaid, we find that
the dismissal of the writ petition by the learned
Single Judge was not justified, accordingly, we
are of the view that the appeal deserves to be
allowed.
Consequently,
the
order
dated
20.01.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge is
set aside so also the impugned order dated
31.08.2019 shall stand set aside and the writ
petition shall stand allowed.

19. Consequences to follow.

20. In the facts and circumstances, there
shall be no order as to costs.
----------
(2021)12ILR A1063
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.11.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, C.J.
THE HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.

Spl Appl. (D) No. 660 of 2021

State of U.P. & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Pooja Singh ...Opp. Party

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Rama Nand Pandey

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Om Prakash Singh

A.
Service
Law
-
Compassionate
Appointment
-
U.P.
Recruitment
of
Dependents of Government Servants Dying
in Harness Rules, 1974 - Rule 2(c)(iii) - This
Court has held that exclusion of married
daughter from the ambit of expression of
"family" as defined u/Rule 2(c) of the Rules
is
illegal
and
unconstitutional.
Meaning
thereby, even married daughters are eligible
for appointment on compassionate basis,
and hence, cannot be treated ineligible, as such,
as this Court has not framed any law rather has
merely declared the law. (Para 10)

B. No concealment of fact - When the
respondent
filed
application
seeking
compassionate appointment, she was not married
as she is stated to have married on December 01,
2001 whereas the application for compassionate
appointment was filed on October 13, 1999.
Hence, it is not a case of concealment of fact
in the application filed by the respondent.
(Para 7, 8)

Considering the fact that the respondent is in
service for the last more than 15 years and, there
was no concealment of fact as such in the
application filed by her seeking compassionate
appointment,
no
ground
is
made
out
for
interference. (Para 11)

Appeal dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. Smt. Vimla Srivastava Vs St. of U.P. & anr., 2016
(1) ADJ 21 (DB) (Para 4, 10)

2. The St. of U.P. & anr. Vs Neha Srivastava, Special
Leave Petition No. 22646 of 2016, decided on
23.07.2019 (Para 4, 10)

Present Special Appeal assails judgment and
order dated 25.01.2021, passed by learned
Single Judge.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajesh Bindal, C.J.)

1. Order dated January 25, 2021 passed by
learned Single Judge has been challenged by the
State by filing the present intra-Court appeal.

2. The respondent had approached this
Court challenging the order dated September 1,
2017, whereby the order of her appointment on
compassionate basis was cancelled on the
1064 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
ground that she had concealed the factum of her
being married at the time of initial appointment.

3. Learned Standing Counsel, appearing
for the appellants, submitted that it is a case
where respondent had concealed the factum of
her being married at the time of the
compassionate appointment, hence there being
concealment of fact, her appointment is liable to
be cancelled. Relying upon Rule 2(c)(iii) of U.P.
Recruitment of Dependents of Government
Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974
(hereinafter referred to as "the Rules"), it is
submitted that married daughter is not included
in the definition of the "family". That being so,
the appointment granted to the respondent on
compassionate basis was liable to be withdrawn.
As such, there was no error in the order
withdrawing
compassionate
appointment
granted to the respondent and learned Single
Judge has wrongly quashed the same.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for
the respondent submitted that exclusion of
unmarried daughter from the definition of the
family vide Rule 2(c)(iii) of the Rules was
struck down by this Court in Smt. Vimla
Srivastava Vs. State Of U.P. And Another
2016(1) ADJ 21 (DB). It means that the
daughter, whether married and unmarried, both
are now included within the definition of the
"family" for the purpose of Rule 2(c) of the
Rules. Special Leave Petition No. 22646 of
2016 (The State of U.P. and another Vs. Neha
Srivastava) against the same was dismissed by
Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated July 23,
2019.

5. It is further submitted that at the time
when the respondent filed application for
appointment on compassionate basis, she was
not married, hence, there was no concealment of
fact as such. Marriage took place thereafter. She,
being in service for the last 15 years and having
family to support, should not be thrown out of
service. At present, she would be over age for
entry into service.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the paper book.

7. As is evident from the fact on record,
father of the respondent, who was working as
Labour Inspector in the Labour Department,
died during service in September, 1980. The
respondent was an infant at that time. She
attained majority in the year 1998. Only
thereafter, she filed application for appointment
on compassionate basis on October 13, 1999.
Her case remained pending for a period of about
six years. During interregnum period, on
December 1, 2001, she got married. In
pursuance of order dated July 21, 2006 issued by
Government
giving
appointment
to
the
respondent on a Class-III post, Deputy Labour
Commissioner on November 4, 2006 issued
appointment
letter,
pursuant
whereof
the
respondent joined service.

8. From the aforesaid fact, it is evident that
when the respondent filed application seeking
compassionate
appointment,
she
was
not
married as she is stated to have married on
December 01, 2001 whereas the application for
compassionate
appointment
was
filed
on
October 13, 1999. Hence, it is not a case of
concealment of fact in the application filed by
the respondent.

9. Rule-2 (c)(iii) of the Rules defines
"family" as under:

"2. Definitions.- In these rules, unless
the context otherwise requires,-

.....

(c)
"family"
shall
include
the
following relations of the deceased

Government servant:

(i) Wife or husband;

(ii) Sons;
11 All. Arti Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1065

(iii)
Unmarried
and
widowed
daughters;"

10. Validity of the aforesaid provision,
whereby married daughters were excluded for
consideration for appointment on compassionate
basis, was subject matter of challenge before this
Court in Smt. Vimla Srivastava's case (supra).
This Court held that exclusion of married
daughter from the ambit of expression of
"family" as defined under Rule 2(c) of the Rules
is illegal and unconstitutional, hence was struck
down. Special Leave Petition against the
aforesaid judgment was dismissed by Hon'ble
Supreme Court vide order dated July 23, 2019 in
Neha Srivastava's case (supra). Meaning
thereby, after exclusion of married daughter for
being eligible for appointment on compassionate
basis having been struck down by this Court,
even
married
daughters
are
eligible
for
appointment on compassionate basis, and hence,
cannot be treated ineligible, as such, as this
Court has not framed any law rather has merely
declared the law.

11. Considering the fact that the
respondent is in service for the last more than 15
years and, as noticed above, there was no
concealment of fact as such in the application
filed by her seeking compassionate appointment,
we do not find that any ground is made out to
interfere in the order passed by learned Single.
The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.
----------
(2021)12ILR A1065
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.11.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJESH BINDAL, C.J.
THE HON'BLE PIYUSH AGRAWAL, J.

Spl Appl. No. 278 of 2021

Arti ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Ashutosh Mani Tripathi, Sri D.S.M. Tripathi

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri P.K. Ganguly

A. Service Law - Compassionate Appointment -
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. If the family had sufficient
means to carry on its affairs for long time, in
such
a
case
compassionate
appointment
cannot be made. The purpose of compassionate
appointment is not to provide employment by
succession, it is not a source of recruitment but
it is to meet immediate hardship arose due to
sudden demise of sole bread earner of the
family leaving behind the legal heirs in penury.
The purpose is not for providing a post against
post. It is not reservation in service by virtue of
succession. (Para 6 to 11)

Late Sri Jagdish Narayan Mishra (Assistant Teacher,
L.T. Grade) was survived by four persons, his wife,
his son Ashutosh Mishra, his daughter Anju Devi and
appellant Arti Mishra. In respect of the appellant, it is
recorded that she has got married 15 years ago and
her husband is employed, and despite opportunity,
learned counsel for the appellant could not establish
from the record the penury condition of the appellant
or the family of the deceased so as to entitle her for
consideration of her request for compassionate
appointment sympathetically. He also could not
satisfy the Court as to why the application seeking
compassionate appointment was made at such a
belated stage. (Para 4, 5)

Compassionate appointment is an exception to
the general rule of appointment in the public
services.
The
whole
object
of
granting
compassionate appointment is thus to enable the
family to tide over the sudden crisis. (Para 11)

Appeal dismissed. (E-4)