# Tinku Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 7 ILRA 789
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-07-14
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 6583 of 2022
- **Bench:** Ajay Bhanot
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/tinku-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-53649
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

C.S.C., Krishna MohanSri Akhilesh Chandra
Srivastava, C.S.C., Sri Gaurav Bishan

Issue for consideration
 Whether the claim of the petitioner for
grant of appointment on compassionate
grounds has been rightly declined by the
impugned order dated 14.09.2018?

Headnotes
A.
Service
Law
-
Scheme
for
appointment
on
Compassionate
Grounds:
Clauses
6,
22(h)
-
Compassionate appointments are made
only to enable the family of the
deceased employee to tide over the
immediate financial crisis caused by
the death of the earning member of
the
family.
The
appointments
on
compassionate ground entail deviation from
regular processes of recruitment, and are
an
exception
to
the
constitutionally
mandated scheme for appointments to
posts in the government and in government
undertakings. Compassionate appointments
emanate from specific service rules holding
the field and have been rationalized by
service
law
jurisprudence
evolved
by
Constitutional Courts. (Para 6, 7, 11)
790 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
B. The purpose of grant of compassionate
ground appointments can be subserved
and their constitutionality can be saved
only by strict compliance of the rules
governing the grant of compassionate
ground appointments. (Para 12 to 14, 17)

The
concept
of
compassionate
ground
appointments is a welfare measure taken by a
model employer. The provisions of the scheme
for compassionate appointment has to be
interpreted in order to reach the beneficent
measures to the eligible candidates. The
authorities have to implement the said scheme
to effectuate the benign intent of the scheme of
compassionate appointments. However, there is
a caution. An over liberal interpretation of the
right to the appointments on compassionate
ground
will
open
a
floodgate
of
such
appointments and turn them into a veritable
source of recruitment. In these circumstances
very concept of appointments on compassionate
grounds will then be exposed to the wrath of
Articles 14, 15, 16 of the Constitution of India.
(Para 16)

C. Determination of the financial condition
or the nature of financial crisis being faced
by the family caused by the death of
employee is a mandatory pre condition for
appointment on compassionate grounds.
(Para 18)

D. Financial penury has not been defined
in the holdings of various constitutional
courts. The same has to be examined in
light of facts of each case and applicable
provisions of law. (Para 20)

In
the
present
case,
respondent
bank
appointments on compassionate grounds are
governed and regulated under the Scheme for
appointment on compassionate grounds holding
the field. Clause 6 of the said scheme provides
for a sound and a rationale criteria for
determining the financial condition of the family
of the deceased and to make a finding on
eligibility
for
grant
of
compassionate
appointment. The manner of computation of
income of the family of the deceased is provided
in sub clause (h) of clause 22 of the aforesaid
scheme. (Para 21 to 23)

While determining the income of the family
under the said scheme the authority has to
examine as to whether the son/family member
of the deceased who is gainfully employed is
maintaining the dependents of the deceased or
not. If the member has no connection with the
dependents of the deceased or does not cater
to their financial 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. (Para 29)

In the instant case, a specific ground has been
taken that the son of the deceased who is
employed in CISF is not maintaining the family.
According to the petitioner his income could not
be included in the income of the family which
was
computed
by
the
bank
authorities.
However, these material aspects were not
considered while passing the impugned order.
In this wake the impugned orders are quashed.
(Para 30 to 32)

Writ

## Text

7 All. Tinku Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
789
There are of course the exceptions carved
out by this Court to this general rule. This
position was reiterated by this Court in its
latest judgment in Union of India v. S.
Vinodh Kumar [(2007) 8 SCC 100 : (2007)
2 SCC (L&S) 792] .... The Court also
referred to the judgment in Om Prakash
Shukla v. Akhilesh Kumar Shukla [1986
Supp SCC 285 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 644],
where it has been held specifically that
when
a
candidate
appears
in
the
examination
without
protest
and
subsequently is found to be not successful
in the examination, the question of
entertaining the petition challenging such
examination would not arise."

14. The Court also takes note of a
judgment passed by Supreme Court in the
case of State of U.P. and others vs. Atul
Kumar Dwivedi and others, (2022) 11
SCC 578 relied on by learned counsel for
respondents that in the event when
examination is conducted in more than one
shifts, the process to ascertain merit by
applying normalization method on raw
marks was accepted as a legal method,
therefore, also any argument against
application of such method is sans merit.

15. The last argument of learned
counsel for petitioner was that some seats
are still vacant on which petitioners may be
considered in accordance to their respective
merit. However, the Court is of the opinion
that selection process is of the year 2018
and to consider the aforesaid prayer after
about 7 years would be in the teeth of a
judgment passed by Supreme Court in the
case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs Pankaj
Kumar, (2022)1 SCC 335.

16. In view of above discussion, the
Court is of the opinion that the relief sought
by petitioners cannot be granted.

17. The writ petitions are accordingly
dismissed
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 789
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.07.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Writ-A No. 6583 of 2022

Tinku Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Mujib Ahmad Siddiqui

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Krishna MohanSri Akhilesh Chandra
Srivastava, C.S.C., Sri Gaurav Bishan

Issue for consideration
 Whether the claim of the petitioner for
grant of appointment on compassionate
grounds has been rightly declined by the
impugned order dated 14.09.2018?

Headnotes
A.
Service
Law
-
Scheme
for
appointment
on
Compassionate
Grounds:
Clauses
6,
22(h)
-
Compassionate appointments are made
only to enable the family of the
deceased employee to tide over the
immediate financial crisis caused by
the death of the earning member of
the
family.
The
appointments
on
compassionate ground entail deviation from
regular processes of recruitment, and are
an
exception
to
the
constitutionally
mandated scheme for appointments to
posts in the government and in government
undertakings. Compassionate appointments
emanate from specific service rules holding
the field and have been rationalized by
service
law
jurisprudence
evolved
by
Constitutional Courts. (Para 6, 7, 11)
790 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
B. The purpose of grant of compassionate
ground appointments can be subserved
and their constitutionality can be saved
only by strict compliance of the rules
governing the grant of compassionate
ground appointments. (Para 12 to 14, 17)

The
concept
of
compassionate
ground
appointments is a welfare measure taken by a
model employer. The provisions of the scheme
for compassionate appointment has to be
interpreted in order to reach the beneficent
measures to the eligible candidates. The
authorities have to implement the said scheme
to effectuate the benign intent of the scheme of
compassionate appointments. However, there is
a caution. An over liberal interpretation of the
right to the appointments on compassionate
ground
will
open
a
floodgate
of
such
appointments and turn them into a veritable
source of recruitment. In these circumstances
very concept of appointments on compassionate
grounds will then be exposed to the wrath of
Articles 14, 15, 16 of the Constitution of India.
(Para 16)

C. Determination of the financial condition
or the nature of financial crisis being faced
by the family caused by the death of
employee is a mandatory pre condition for
appointment on compassionate grounds.
(Para 18)

D. Financial penury has not been defined
in the holdings of various constitutional
courts. The same has to be examined in
light of facts of each case and applicable
provisions of law. (Para 20)

In
the
present
case,
respondent
bank
appointments on compassionate grounds are
governed and regulated under the Scheme for
appointment on compassionate grounds holding
the field. Clause 6 of the said scheme provides
for a sound and a rationale criteria for
determining the financial condition of the family
of the deceased and to make a finding on
eligibility
for
grant
of
compassionate
appointment. The manner of computation of
income of the family of the deceased is provided
in sub clause (h) of clause 22 of the aforesaid
scheme. (Para 21 to 23)

While determining the income of the family
under the said scheme the authority has to
examine as to whether the son/family member
of the deceased who is gainfully employed is
maintaining the dependents of the deceased or
not. If the member has no connection with the
dependents of the deceased or does not cater
to their financial 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. (Para 29)

In the instant case, a specific ground has been
taken that the son of the deceased who is
employed in CISF is not maintaining the family.
According to the petitioner his income could not
be included in the income of the family which
was
computed
by
the
bank
authorities.
However, these material aspects were not
considered while passing the impugned order.
In this wake the impugned orders are quashed.
(Para 30 to 32)

Writ petition allowed. (E-4)

Case Law Cited
1. Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana,
1994 (4) SCC 138 (Para 9)
2. Director of Education (Secondary) Vs.
Pushpendra Kumar, 1998 (5) SCC 192 (Para 10)
3. Roopam Mishra Vs. State of U.P. and 4
others, Writ-A No. 15512 of 2019 (Para 11)
4. Director of Treasuries in Karnataka & Anr. Vs.
Somyashree, Civil Appeal No. 5122 of 2021
(Para 12)
5. Ipsita Chakrabarti Vs. State of West Bengal,
2018 (2) Cal LT 177 (HC) (Para 13)
6. Sri Bijon Mukherjee Vs. The State of West
Bengal and others, 2018 (3) Cal LT 136 (HC)
(Para 14)
7. Ankita Saha and Anr. Vs. The State of West
Bengal and Ors., WPA No. 12287 of 2019
(Calcutta High Court) (Para 15)
8.
Central
Coalfields
Limited
through
its
Chairman and Managing Director and others Vs.
Parden Oraon, (2021) 16 SCC 384 (Para 19)

List of Acts
Scheme for appointment on Compassionate
Grounds.
7 All. Tinku Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
791
List of Keywords
Service Law; compassionate; appointment.

Appearances for Parties
For Petitioner: Mujib Ahmad Siddiqui

For Respondents: C.S.C., Krishna Mohan
Asthana

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

1.
Heard
Sri
Mujib
Ahmad
Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Sri Krishna Mohan Asthana, learned
counsel assisted by Sri Sagar Srivastava,
learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The father of the petitioner was an
employee of the respondent bank who died
in harness on 12.04.2016. The claim of the
petitioner for grant of appointment on
compassionate grounds has been declined
by the impugned order dated 14.09.2018.

3. The appointment on compassionate
ground has been declined on the footing
that the total income of the petitioner's
family from all sources exceeds the
threshold criteria of Rs. 35,000/- per
month. Hence the family does not face
financial destitution and the applicant is not
entitled for appointment on compassionate
grounds.

4. Heard learned counsel for the
parties.

5. Appointments to public posts,
government
services
and
to
various
instrumentalities of the State within the
meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of
India are governed and regulated by
comprehensive provisions contained in the
Constitution. The constitutional scheme
envisages an open recruitment and a
transparent
procedure
which
enables
maximum
participation
from
eligible
segments of the citizenry at large. The final
appointments are made after a fair selection
based on competitive merit. While making
the said appointments the reservation
policy or affirmative action under the
Constitution
for
representation
and
empowerment
of
backward
classes,
SCs/STs and other sections of the society
identified as per law has to be duly adhered
to. The recruitment and appointment to
government
services
and
government
undertakings
were
examined
by
constitutional courts in the context of
Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution
of India. Holdings of the constitutional
courts have irretrievably entrenched the
aforesaid
modes
and
procedures
for
appointments to posts in the government
and Article 12 instrumentalities in the body
of the constitutional law.

6. On the contrary compassionate
ground appointments are not made through
a transparent and public process of
recruitment after inviting the applications
from the open market. The appointments on
compassionate ground entail deviation
from regular processes of recruitment, and
are
an
exception
to
the
aforesaid
constitutionally
mandated
scheme
for
appointments to posts in the government
and
in
government
undertakings.
Compassionate appointments emanate from
specific service rules holding the field and
have been rationalized by service law
jurisprudence evolved by Constitutional
Courts.

7. The appointments on compassionate
ground passed the test of constitutional
validity by a slender margin. Dependents of
a deceased employee face unforeseen
792 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
financial destitution after the death of the
latter
and
need
urgent
succour.
Compassionate appointments are made
only to enable the family of the deceased
employee to tide over the immediate
financial crisis caused by the death of the
earning member of the family. This feature
alone constituted the dependent 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. The discussion has the benefit of
authorities in point.

9. Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar
Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana1 explained
the purpose of compassionate in following
terms:

"2. The question relates to the
considerations which should guide while
giving appointment in public services on
compassionate ground. It appears that there
has been a good deal of obfuscation on the
issue. 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
7 All. Tinku Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
793
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."

10. A similar sentiment was echoed by
the
Supreme
Court
in
Director
of
Education (Secondary) v. Pushpendra
Kumar2:

"8.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 breadearner 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 dependants 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 to 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 dependant of a
deceased employee......."

11. This Court in Roopam Mishra v.
State of U.P. and 4 others3 held as under:

"16. The purpose of compassionate
appointments provides their justification. The
death of a bread winner forces the family of the
deceased into penury. The immediacy of the
financial crisis creates the requirement for
urgent redressal. The concept of compassionate
appointments is created only to enable the
bereaved family to tide over the immediate
financial crisis".

12. The need to make appointments on
compassionate grounds in conformity with the
Rules governing the grant of such appointments
was emphasized by the Supreme Court in the
Director of Treasuries in Karnataka & Anr.
v. Somyashree4 by summarizing the law as
follows:

"7......(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."
794 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
13. Similarly, the necessity to
strictly
adhere
to
rules
relating
to
compassionate grounds was succinctly
summarized by the Calcutta High Court in
Ipsita Chakrabarti v. State of West
Bengal5. Ipsita Chakrabarti (supra)
upon consideration of holdings of various
Constitutional Courts held:

 "(a)
Appointment
on
compassionate grounds is an exception
craved out to the general rule that
recruitment to public services is to be made
in a transparent and accountable manner
providing
opportunity
to
all
eligible
persons to compete and participate in the
selection process.

 (b) The right of a dependent of an
employee
who
died
in
harness
for
compassionate appointment is based on the
scheme, executive instructions, rules etc.
framed by the employer and there is no
right to claim compassionate appointment
on any other ground apart from the above
scheme conferred by the employer.

 (c)
Appointment
on
compassionate ground is given only for
meeting the immediate hardship which is
faced by the family by reason of the death
of the bread earner. When an appointment
is made on compassionate ground it should
be kept confined only to the purpose it
seems to achieve, the idea being not to
provide for endless compassion.
 (d) Compassionate appointment
has to be exercised only in warranting
situations and circumstances existing in
granting appointment and guiding factors
should be financial condition of the
family."

14. Furthermore, the Calcutta High
Court in Sri Bijon Mukherjee v. The
State of West Bengal and others6 again
stated what is by now the settled position of
law
that
the
appointments
on
compassionate ground must be made only
in conformity with the specific rules
applicable to the employee :

 "26. After observing the ratio and
the legal positions contended by the
Counsels appearing on behalf of the parties
as well as the precedents examined above, I
am persuaded to opine that appointment on
compassionate grounds seeks to relieve the
immediate financial hardship faced by the
dependants of the deceased. It acts as an
exception to Articles 14 and 16 of the
Constitution as the defendant are given
preferential appointment ahead of other
equally meritorious candidates similarly
placed and hence it cannot be claimed as a
right. With the object of appointment on
compassionate grounds in mind, it is
palpably clear to me that this appointment
must be done in accordance with the rules
for such appointment. The dependant
seeking such appointment must be eligible
for such consideration and facing financial
hardship to the extent delineated by the
rules."

15. Ipsita Chakrabarti (supra) and
Sri
Bijon
Mukherjee
(supra)
were
followed by the Calcutta High Court in
Ankita Saha and Anr. v. The State of
West Bengal and Ors7

16. The concept of compassionate
ground appointments is a welfare measure
taken by a model employer. The provisions
of
the
scheme
for
compassionate
appointment has to be interpreted in order
to reach the beneficient measures to the
eligible candidates. The authorities have to
implement te said scheme to effectuate the
benign
intent
of
the
scheme
of
7 All. Tinku Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
795
compassionate
appointments.
However,
there
is
a
caution.
An
overliberal
interpretation
of
the
right
to
the
appointments on compassionate ground
will open a floodgate of such appointments
and turn them into a veritable source of
recruitment.
An
unjustified
generous
approach in compassionate ground which is
not consistent with the applicable service
rules will confer benefits to underserving
and
ineligible
candidates,
and
simultaneously deny the constitutional
rights and legal claims of eligible and
meritorious
candidates
from
getting
appointment to government posts. Treating
compassionate ground appointments as an
unconditional and vested right and making
it a source of recruitment will shear the thin
veil of legality which protects such
appointments
from
the
vice
of
unconstitutionality. In these circumstances
very
concept
of
appointments
on
compassionate
grounds
will
then
be
exposed to the wrath of Articles 14, 15, 16
of the Constitution of India.

17. The purpose of grant of
compassionate ground appointments can be
subserved and their constitutionality can be
saved only by strict compliance of the rules
governing the grant of compassionate
ground appointments.

18.
The
preceding
discussion
discloses that determination of the financial
condition or the nature of financial crises
being faced by the family caused by the
death of employee is thus a mandatory pre
condition
for
appointment
on
compassionate grounds.

19. The importance of assessing the
financial condition of the family of
deceased was emphasized by the Supreme
Court in Central Coalfields Limited
through its Chairman and Managing
Director and others Vs Parden Oraon8
by holding thus:

 "8. The whole object of granting
compassionate appointment is to enable the
family to tide over the sudden crisis which
arises due to the death of the sole
breadwinner. The mere death of an
employee in harness does not entitle his
family to such source of livelihood. The
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 the job is offered to the eligible
member of the family 1. It was further
asseverated in the said judgment that
compassionate employment cannot be
granted after a lapse of reasonable period as
the consideration of such employment is
not a vested right which can be exercised at
any time in the future. It was further held
that
the
object
of
compassionate
appointment is to enable the family to get
over the financial crisis that it faces at the
time of the death of sole breadwinner,
compassionate appointment cannot be
claimed or offered after a significant lapse
of time and after the crisis is over."

20. Financial penury has not been
defined
in
the
holdings
of
various
constitutional courts. The same has to be
examined in light of facts of each case and
applicable provisions of law.

21.
In
the
respondent
bank
appointments on compassionate grounds
are governed and regulated under the
Scheme for appointment on compassionate
grounds holding the field. The eligibility
criteria provided in the Scheme is extracted
hereunder:
796 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
 "6. Eligibility criteria:

 a. The family is indigent and
deserves immediate assistance for relief
from financial destitution. Accordingly,
appointment on compassionate grounds
will be granted to deserving cases where
the total income of the family from all
sources is below Rs. 35,000/-per month.

 b. Applicant for compassionate
appointment should be eligible and suitable
for the post in all respects under the
provisions of the relevant Recruitment
Rules."

22. Clause 6 of the said scheme
provides for a sound and a rationale criteria
for determining the financial condition of
the family of the deceased and to make a
finding
on
eligibility
for
grant
of
compassionate appointment.

23. The manner of computation of
income of the family of the deceased is
provided in sub clause (h) of clause 22 of
the aforesaid scheme. The provision is
extracted hereunder:

 "h. Total monthly income of the
family from all sources:

 i. Monthly interest on Net Assets
@ Max. Interest rate applicable to general
public as on date of death.
 ii. Monthly pension from the
Bank (of deceased)
 iii. Monthly income of family
members.
 iv. Monthly income from any
other source

 -----------------------------------------
---------------------------------
Total (H)
24. The exercise to determine the
financial status of the family after death of
the employee has been undertaken by the
bank.

25. The impugned order dated
14.09.2018 has found that the monthly
income of the family is Rs. 55,783/-, which
is more than ceiling income of Rs. 35,000/
p.m. The manner of calculation of the total
monthly
by
the
Bank
is
extracted
hereunder;

01 Monthly
notional
interest income on
terminal benefits and
investment proceeds
Rs. 5,825.00

02 Monthly
pension
from the Bank (of
deceased)

Rs.
13,344.00

03 Monthly Income of
the dependant family
members (Son)

Rs
.
36,614.00

Total
Monthly Income

Rs.
55,783.00

 26. While calculating the monthly
income of the family of the deceased drawn
from all sources, the income of one son of
the deceased who is employed as constable
in the CISF has also been included.
According to the petitioners the aforesaid
son of the deceased resides separately with
his family and does not support or maintain
the family of the deceased. Hence the
income of the aforesaid earning member of
the deceased's family was not liable to be
computed towards the monthly family
income. Further the petitioner also claims
that he was solely dependent on his father.
27. According to the learned
counsel for the Bank financial hardship and
7 All. Tinku Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
797
the income of the family was computed in
light of relevant clauses of the Scheme
quoted hereunder:

 "13. Where there is an earning
member in a family:

 a. In deserving cases, even when
there is already an earning member in the
family, a dependent family member may be
considered for compassionate appointment
with the prior approval of the Competent
Authority of the Bank who, before
approving such appointment, will satisfy
himself
that
grant
of
compassionate
appointment is justified, having regard to
the number of dependents, assets and
liabilities left by the employee, income of
the earning member, as also his liabilities
including the fact that the earning member
is residing with the family of the employee
and whether he should not be a source of
support to other members of the family.

 b. In cases where any member of
the family of the deceased or medically
retired employee is already in employment
and is not supporting the other members of
the family of the deceased employee,
extreme caution has to be observed in
ascertaining the economic distress of the
members of the family of the deceased
employee
so
that,
the
facility
of
appointment on compassionate ground is
not circumvented and misused by putting
forward the ground that the member of the
family already employed is not supporting
the family."

 21: General

 c.
An
application
for
compassionate
appointment
should,
however, not be rejected merely on the
ground that the family of the employee has
received the benefits under the various
welfare schemes. While considering a
request for appointment on compassionate
ground
a
balanced
and
objective
assessment of the financial condition of the
family has to be made taking into account
its assets and liabilities (including the
benefits received under the various welfare
schemes mentioned above) and all other
relevant factors such as the presence of an
earning member, size of the family etc."

28. The aforesaid clauses have to
be interpreted in light of the purposes to be
subserved by appointment under the
compassionate grounds and to implement
the intent of the beneficent provisions. The
respondents have to diligently consider
only relevant factors while determining the
financial
status
of
the
family
and
consciously
exclude
irrelevant
consideration. The aim of exercise is to
ensure that lawful benefits accrue to legible
claimants, while unlawful claims do not
pass muster.

29. While determining the income
of the family under the said scheme the
authority has to examine as to whether the
son/family member of the deceased who is
gainfully employed is maintaining the
dependents of the deceased or not. If the
member of the family who is gainfully
employed has no connection with the
dependents of the deceased or does not
cater to their financial 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.

30. In the instant case, a specific
ground has been taken that the son of the
798 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
deceased who is employed in CISF is not
maintaining the family. According to the
petitioner his income could not be included in
the income of the family which was computed
by the bank authorities. However, these material
aspects were not considered while passing the
impugned order.

31. The impugned orders dated
29.08.2018 and 14.09.2018 neglect to consider
the
aforesaid
germane
aspects
while
invalidating the claim of the petitioners. The
impugned orders dated 29.08.2018 and
14.09.2018 are vitiated on account of non
application of mind to relevant consideration.

32. In this wake, the impugned orders
dated 29.08.2018 and 14.09.2018 are quashed.

33. 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.

34. The writ petition is allowed to
the extent indicated above.
----------
(2025) 7 ILRA 798
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 14.07.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI
CHAUHAN, J.

Writ-A No. 9438 of 2025
Atul Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Hridaya Narain Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sanjay Kumar Singh

Issue for consideration
Whether petitioner's candidature fulfils the
requirements as enshrined under the Uttar
Pradesh
Recruitment
of
Dependents
of
Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules,
1974?

Headnotes

A.
Uttar
Pradesh
Recruitment
of
Dependents
of
Government
Servants
Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 Rule 5 - Facts
of the case are that petitioner's mother late
Savitri Devi was working as an Assistant
Teacher in a Junior High School, Barauli, Block
Nagra, District Ballia. She died-in harness on
06th July, 2020. The petitioner moved a
representation before the third respondent on
29th September, 2021 for his appointment on
compassionate ground on the post of peon,
however, it failed to elicit any response. The
impugned order dated 30th May, 2025 has been
passed whereby the claim for compassionate
appointment of the petitioner has been rejected,
which is under challenge in the present writ
petition. (Para 2)

B.
The
whole
object
of
granting
compassionate appointment is to provide
succour to the indigent family of a
deceased employee so as to tide over the
sudden crisis and financial destitution.
(Para 6)

C.
Compassionate
appointment
is
a
concession and not a right and the criteria
laid down in the Rules must be satisfied
by all aspirants. The applicant dependent
must strictly fall within the parameters as on the
date of the death of government servant,
besides the fact that the appointment is neither
a right nor an alternative source of recruitment.
(Para 7, 9)

Dependents of the deceased Government
employee are made eligible by virtue of
the policy on compassionate appointment
and they must fulfil the norms laid down