# Vijay Kumar v. Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2024) 2 ILRA 799
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2024-01-04
- **Case number:** Writ - A No. 7198 of 2023
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vijay-kumar-v-union-of-india-ors-51481
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Law
-
Compassionate
Appointment - Regional Rural Banks -
Applicable Scheme - Date of death of
employee decisive factor.

Held, right to compassionate appointment is not
an inherent right but one conferred by
Rules/Scheme in force on the date of death of
the employee. Subsequent schemes cannot be
applied
retrospectively
unless
expressly
provided. (Paras 13-16)

B. Regional Rural Banks - Adoption of Ministry
of
Finance
Scheme
dated
07.08.2014
-
Applicability.
Scheme
of
Ministry
of
Finance
dated
07.08.2014, though effective for Public Sector
Banks from 05.08.2014, applied to Regional
Rural Banks only upon adoption by the
concerned Bank. Prathama U.P. Gramin Bank
adopted
the
scheme
vide
circular
dated
800 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
10.05.2019, with effect from 08.02.2019 (for
erstwhile Sarva U.P. Gramin Bank staff). Death
prior to this date governed by SUPGB HRD
Circular
No.
16/2013,
which
confined
compassionate
appointment
to
two
contingencies alone. (Paras 12-13, 16)

C. Service Law - Compassionate Appointment -
Principle settled by Supreme Court.
Date of death of employee is the determinative
criterion, not the date of application or its
consideration. Pending applications cannot be
decided under a subsequent scheme unless the
scheme itself provides. (Para 14, 15; Bheemesh
alias Bheemappa, AIR 2022 SC 402 relied on)

D. Result.
Petitioner's father having died on 25.08.2018,
prior to enforcement of 2014 scheme in the
Bank (08.02.2019), petitioner not entitled to
claim compassionate appointment.

Held: Petition dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Paras 16, 17, 18)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

2 All. Vijay Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors.
799
system of appointment is mentioned and it
has
been
simply
mentioned
that
appointment was itself irregular and liable
to be cancelled. Thus, the contention is that
the letter dated 14.03.2022 itself and
consequent letter dated 30.03.2022 are nonspeaking and are erroneous and, therefore,
the same are liable to be quashed.

(26) The facts of the present case
clearly indicate that it is not in dispute that
the selected candidates has possessed
requisite qualification for appointment on
Class - III post on the date of occurrence of
vacancies and that no such findings have
been returned by the District Inspector of
Schools
or
the
Director
Education
(Secondary) with regard to the lack of
requisite qualifications of the selected
candidates. Thus, it can be concluded that
the impugned letters have been passed
without any application of mind and the
Director of Education (Secondary) and the
District Inspector of Schools has clearly
ignored the distinction between a minority
and non-minority institution and has
neglected the privileges which are enjoyed
by the institution in question in terms of
Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution of
India. Thus, the impugned orders/letters
passed/issued by the Director of Education
(Secondary) and the District Inspector of
Schools cannot be sustained and are liable
to be quashed.

E. Conclusion

(27) In view of the aforesaid, the writ
petition is allowed. The impugned letters
dated 14.03.2022 issued by the Director of
Education
(Secondary),
Lucknow
and
consequent letter dated 30.03.2022 issued
by the DIOS, Bahraich are hereby quashed.
The District Inspector of Schools, Bahraich
is directed to look into the matter afresh
and pass appropriate order, in accordance
with law, after affording opportunity of
hearing to the petitioners, expeditiously,
say, within a period of four weeks from the
date of receipt of a certified copy of this
order. The decision so taken shall be
communicated to the petitioners forthwith.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 799
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 04.01.2024

BEFORE

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

Writ - A No. 7198 of 2023

Vijay Kumar ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Jitendra Kumar

Counsel for the Respondents:
A.S.G.I., Sri Yashwant Singh

A.
Service
Law
-
Compassionate
Appointment - Regional Rural Banks -
Applicable Scheme - Date of death of
employee decisive factor.

Held, right to compassionate appointment is not
an inherent right but one conferred by
Rules/Scheme in force on the date of death of
the employee. Subsequent schemes cannot be
applied
retrospectively
unless
expressly
provided. (Paras 13-16)

B. Regional Rural Banks - Adoption of Ministry
of
Finance
Scheme
dated
07.08.2014
-
Applicability.
Scheme
of
Ministry
of
Finance
dated
07.08.2014, though effective for Public Sector
Banks from 05.08.2014, applied to Regional
Rural Banks only upon adoption by the
concerned Bank. Prathama U.P. Gramin Bank
adopted
the
scheme
vide
circular
dated
800 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
10.05.2019, with effect from 08.02.2019 (for
erstwhile Sarva U.P. Gramin Bank staff). Death
prior to this date governed by SUPGB HRD
Circular
No.
16/2013,
which
confined
compassionate
appointment
to
two
contingencies alone. (Paras 12-13, 16)

C. Service Law - Compassionate Appointment -
Principle settled by Supreme Court.
Date of death of employee is the determinative
criterion, not the date of application or its
consideration. Pending applications cannot be
decided under a subsequent scheme unless the
scheme itself provides. (Para 14, 15; Bheemesh
alias Bheemappa, AIR 2022 SC 402 relied on)

D. Result.
Petitioner's father having died on 25.08.2018,
prior to enforcement of 2014 scheme in the
Bank (08.02.2019), petitioner not entitled to
claim compassionate appointment.

Held: Petition dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Paras 16, 17, 18)

List of Cases cited:

1. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited & ors. Vs Tata
Communications Limited, Civil Appeal Nos.
1699-1723 of 2015, decided on 22.09.2022

2. Secretary to Govt., Deptt. of Education
(Primary) Vs Bheemesh alias Bheemappa, AIR
2022 SC 402 (Paras 14, 15)

3. Bechan Giri Vs U.O.I. & ors., 2023 SCC
OnLine All 441 (Para 15)

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

1. Heard Mr. Jitendra Kumar, learned
Counsel for the petitioner and Mr.
Yashwant
Singh,
learned
Counsel
appearing on behalf of the respondentBank.

2. The petitioner, Vijay Kumar, is the
son of a deceased employee of the
Prathama U.P. Gramin Bank. His father
died in harness. The petitioner's claim for
compassionate
appointment
has
been
rejected by the respondent-Bank by the
orders impugned dated 30.06.2018 and
29.12.2022. He has, therefore, moved this
Court, praying that the orders aforesaid be
quashed and a mandamus issued to the
respondent-Bank to consider his case for
grant of compassionate appointment.

3. The facts giving rise to this petition
are these:

The Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976
(for short, 'the Act of 1976') was enacted to
incorporate and regulate Regional Rural
Banks in the country. This was done for the
purpose of developing the rural economy,
particularly, that relating to agriculture,
trade etc. One of these Banks was the U.P.
Gramin Bank established under the Act of
1976. The U.P. Gramin Bank was a
Regional Rural Bank, and, subsequently,
incorporated as the Sarva U.P. Gramin
Bank, Meerut. Still later, the Prathama U.P.
Gramin Bank came into existence by
amalgamation of the existing Sarva U.P.
Gramin Bank and the Prathama Bank. The
Prathama U.P. Gramin Bank is a Rural
Bank, which is an undertaking of the
Government of India and sponsored by the
Punjab National Bank. It is the petitioner's
case that all rules and regulations made by
the Government of India for Public Sector
Banks are applicable to the Prathama U.P.
Gramin Bank (for short, 'the Bank').

4.

The
Ministry
of
Finance,
Government of India by an order dated
07.08.2014, bearing DOF No.18/2/2013-IR
made
a
scheme
for
compassionate
appointment in Public Sector Banks and
this scheme is applicable to all Public
Sector Banks, including the Bank. The
petitioner's father, the late Om Prakash was
a permanent employee of the Bank. He was
2 All. Vijay Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors.
801
a Clerk-cum-Cashier in the erstwhile Sarva
U.P. Gramin Bank. He died in harness on
25.08.2018. At the time of his demise, the
petitioner's father was posted at the
Gangdhari Branch of the erstwhile Sarva
U.P. Gramin Bank, Meerut, which, as
already said, later on amalgamated with the
Prathama Bank, giving rise to its successor,
the Bank. The petitioner submitted an
application for compassionate appointment
to the Bank on 29.10.2018 and followed up
the
matter
with
a
reminder
dated
22.11.2018.

5. The petitioner's claim, however,
for compassionate appointment was not
considered by the Bank and no result
whatsoever of the decision taken, if any,
was
communicated.
The
petitioner,
therefore, moved this Court by instituting
Writ-A No.19314 of 2022, seeking a
direction to the Bank to take a decision on
the petitioner's claim for compassionate
appointment. This Court by an order dated
24.11.2022 disposed of the aforesaid writ
petition with a direction to the petitioner to
make an appropriate application to some
functionary of the Bank, described in this
Court's order as respondent No.3. The
specified functionary of the Bank was
directed
to
consider
the
petitioner's
application
sympathetically
and
pass
appropriate and reasoned orders thereon
within a period of four months of the
receipt of the petitioner's application.

6. In compliance with this Court's
order dated 24.11.2022, the petitioner made
an application along with a certified copy
of the order. The date of this application is
not mentioned by the petitioner; nor is it
shown on the face of the document,
annexed as Annexure No.7 to the writ
petition. In compliance, on their part, the
Chief Manager of the Bank passed the
order impugned dated 29.12.2022, whereby
the petitioner was informed that his claim
already stands rejected by his predecessor
(the then General Manager, Sarva U.P.
Gramin Bank) by the impugned order dated
30.10.2018.
Thus,
the
petitioner's
application was rejected.

7. A perusal of the impugned order
dated 30.10.2018 shows that the General
Manager of the Sarva U.P. Gramin Bank,
the Bank's predecessor, held that according
to the scheme enforced in the Bank for
appointment,
the
dependents
of
a
deceased's
employee
are
considered
eligible in two contingencies alone: "(a)
where the employee dies in harness while
performing his official duty, as a result of
violence, terrorism, robbery or dacoity; or,
(b) the employee dies within five years of
his first appointment or before reaching the
age of 30 years, whichever is later, leaving
behind a dependent spouse and/ or minor
children." It is said in the order impugned
that according to the records of the Bank,
the late Om Prakash, the petitioner's
father's date of birth was 22.06.1961 and he
was employed with the Bank since
13.08.1986. It was observed that on the
date of his demise, the deceased employee
was aged 56 years and had been in the
Bank's service for the past 32 years. Also,
his death was not on account of any act of
violence, terrorism, robbery or dacoity,
while performing his official duty. For the
said reason, the petitioner was held
ineligible
for
consideration
of
compassionate appointment for him, under
the existing scheme. By the latter order
impugned, that is to say, the one dated
19.12.2022, the same position was taken,
but it was clarified that the rule for
consideration
of
compassionate
appointment, applicable to the petitioner's
case is the one laid down by SUPGB HRD
802 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Circular No. 16/2013, which provides for
only two contingencies, where a claim for
compassionate
appointment
is
maintainable. These are the same two
contingencies, which have been mentioned
hereinabove.

8. It was further stated that the
petitioner's claim would be governed by
SUPGB HRD Circular No. 16/2013,
inasmuch as subsequent orders, circulars or
schemes would not apply with retrospective
effect, as held by the Supreme Court in
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and
others v. M/s. TATA Communications
Limited, Civil Appeal No(S).1699-1723
of 2015, decided on 22.09.2022. There is
no mention in this order about what
subsequent scheme for compassionate
appointment is being referred to, but
apparently what the Bank intend to say is
that on the date of death, the scheme that
was enforced relating to compassionate
appointment would apply and that was
SUPGB HRD Circular No. 16/2013, above
referred.
This
circular
provided
for
compassionate appointment only in the two
contingencies of an employee's death on
duty as a result of violence, terrorism etc.
or within five years of his first appointment
or before reaching the age of 30 years,
whichever was later, leaving a dependent
spouse and/ or minor children. Since these
contingencies did not apply, the scheme in
force at the time of the petitioner's father's
demise
would
not
entitle
him
to
compassionate appointment.

9. The petitioner in the writ petition
says that SUPGB HRD Circular No.
16/2013 has not been provided to the
petitioner
and
non-provision
of
compassionate
appointment
has
been
pleaded to be arbitrary and discriminatory.
The petitioner relied upon the scheme for
compassionate
appointment
in
Public
Sector Banks issued by the Ministry of
Finance, Government of India vide order
07.08.2014, which he says would apply to
the Bank w.e.f. the said date. The attention
of the Court is drawn to Paragraph Nos.8.1
and 8.2 of the scheme issued by the
Ministry of Finance. This provides for
compassionate appointment, according to
the learned Counsel for the petitioner, to all
eligible
dependents
normally
to
be
considered up to five years from the date of
death or retirement on medical grounds,
with an obligation upon the employer to
take a decision on merits in each case. He
has further drawn the attention of the Court
to the meaning of an employee under
Clause 1.2 of the scheme to show that the
petitioner is eligible under it.

10. The submission, in substance, by
the learned Counsel for the petitioner,
therefore, is that the scheme issued by the
Ministry of Finance, Government of India
applies to the Bank w.e.f. 05.08.2014 as it
has been made effective from that date by
the Ministry proprio vigore, with no
adoption necessary by the Bank to make it
applicable in their establishment. He
submits that since the petitioner's father
died on 25.08.2018, the scheme for
compassionate appointment issued by the
Ministry of Finance, must be held to
govern his rights; not SUPGB HRD
Circular No. 16/2013, that was earlier
applicable and provided for a limited right
to compassionate appointment in two
contingencies alone. The learned Counsel
for the petitioner emphasized that since
under the scheme dated 07.08.2014, the
right to consideration for compassionate
appointment is an open right, not restricted
to certain contingencies and the petitioner
has applied within five years of his father's
demise, in fact promptly, his case could not
2 All. Vijay Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors.
803
have been rejected by the Bank, falling
back upon the old scheme.

11. In the counter affidavit, the Bank
has raised a plea that the scheme for
compassionate appointment issued by the
Ministry of Finance was adopted by the
Prathama U.P. Bank for the staff of the
erstwhile Sarva U.P. Gramin Bank w.e.f.
08.02.2019, and, in case of staff of the
erstwhile
Prathama
Bank,
w.e.f.
01.03.2019. Since the petitioner's father
died on 25.08.2018, his rights would not be
governed by the scheme for compassionate
appointment issued by the Ministry of
Finance, that was enforced in the Bank's
establishment for the staff of the erstwhile
Sarva U.P. Gramin Bank w.e.f. 08.02.2019.

12. Upon hearing learned Counsel for
the parties, the first question to be
determined, therefore, is if the scheme for
compassionate
appointment
dated
07.08.2014 (w.e.f. 05.08.2014) issued by
the Ministry of Finance by their order
bearing DOF No.18/2/2013-IR would apply
to the Bank proprio vigore or become
enforceable upon the Bank adopting and
enforcing it by their circular dated
10.05.2019. There is apparently nothing to
show in the scheme issued by the Ministry
of Finance, Government of India that it
would apply to the Bank proprio vigore.
Rather, it has been adopted by the Bank in
terms of their circular dated 10.05.2019
with distinct and different dates for its
enforcement for the erstwhile staff of the
Sarva U.P. Gramin Bank and erstwhile
Prathama Bank. Both the dates are
retrospective. In case of the erstwhile staff
of the Sarva U.P. Gramin Bank, the date of
enforcement of the scheme is 08.02.2019
and in case of the erstwhile staff of the
Prathama Bank, it is 01.03.2019.

13. The petitioner's father was on the
staff of the erstwhile Sarva U.P. Gramin
Bank and, therefore, the scheme or the
model scheme framed by the Ministry of
Finance, as adopted by the Bank by their
circular dated 10.05.2019 would apply
w.e.f. 08.02.2019. This Court finds on the
material on record and the way the scheme
has been adopted by the Bank that the
Ministry of Finance had proposed a model
scheme to be adopted by the Nationalized
Banks. It was extended to Regional Rural
Banks incorporated under the Act of 1976.
In either case, the model scheme would be
applicable upon an adoption by the
concerned Bank's Board, on such modified
terms, subject to which it was adopted. The
date of enforcement of the scheme in a
Bank, as is the case with the Bank, would
be the date of its enforcement according to
the Bank's decision to adopt it. Here, the
circular dated 10.05.2019 adopts the
scheme proposed by the Ministry of
Finance for staff of the category to which
the petitioner's father belonged, w.e.f.
08.02.2019. Therefore, it is held that the
scheme for compassionate appointment
providing
for
a
general
right
to
compassionate
appointment
for
the
dependent family member of a permanent
employee of the Bank dying in harness,
would be effective in the Bank for the class
of an employee that the petitioner's father
was, w.e.f. 08.02.2019. Prior to that, the
rights would be governed by SUPGB HRD
Circular No. 16/2013. It would be well to
remember
that
under
SUPGB
HRD
Circular No. 16/2013, there was no general
right for compassionate appointment to a
dependent family member of a permanent
employee.
It
was
restricted to
two
categories of death in harness mentioned in
the impugned orders and the petitioner does
not fall in either.
804 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

14. Now, the other issue is if the right
to compassionate appointment would be
governed by the scheme or the rules in
force regarding compassionate appointment
on the date of death of an employee or the
rules or scheme in force on the date the
dependent's application for consideration
was moved, or actually considered by the
employer. This issue has been the subject
matter of much division of opinion in
authority, which was considered by the
Supreme
Court
in
Secretary
to
Government, Department of Education
(Primary) and others v. Bheemesh alias
Bheemappa, AIR 2022 SC 402. In
Bheemesh alias Bheemappa (supra), it
was held by the Supreme Court:

"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
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
2 All. Vijay Kumar Vs. Union of India & Ors.
805
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."

15. Following the decision in
Bheemesh
alias
Bheemappa,
I
had
occasion to consider the issue in Bechan
Giri v. Union of India, 2023 SCC OnLine
All 441. In Bechan Giri (supra), I held:

"29. Here, there is no issue that in
the Scheme in question, there is no
provision at all about consideration of
pending applications for compassionate
appointment made prior to the introduction
of the Scheme w.e.f. 15th March, 2019.
This is logically so because the present case
is not one where there was apparently an
older scheme granting some kind of limited
right to a consideration for compassionate
appointment in force or a right to an exgratia payment, whereunder an application
could be made by the dependent of a
deceased employee. What appears from the
facts here is that prior to 15th March, 2019,
there was no scheme at all in the
establishment of the respondent Bank in
force extending any kind of a right to
compassionate
appointment,
howsoever
limited or circumscribed. The right to
compassionate
appointment
upon
introduction of the Scheme w.e.f. 15th
March, 2019 was a new found right. In the
absence, therefore, of any provision in the
Scheme for whatever reason to provide
rights for dependents of an employee, who
died prior to its introduction, asking for
compassionate appointment, there could be
no right to compassionate appointment. It
has already been pointed out that the right
to compassionate appointment is not an
inherent right, but one that flows from a
Rule or Scheme being in force at the time
of the death of an employee in harness.
There could be more reason to supply in
aid of that interpretation. Once it is held
that the right to compassionate appointment
is not inherent, but the creature of a Rule,
the right of whatever kind it is, originates
and culminates on the date of death of the
employee in harness. There is no fact
surviving the death of an employee in
harness on the foot of which, a Scheme or
Rule
for
compassionate
appointment
introduced at a later date, may afford the
dependent a right to consideration. Of
course, that kind of a right may arise if the
Scheme provides for that right on its own
terms. Here, the words employed in Clause
8.1, or for that matter Clause 8.2 of the
Scheme, do not envisage cognizance of
cases of dependents, where death of an
employee in harness has taken place before
the Scheme was enforced in the Bank. The
employment of the expression in Clause 8.1
"normally be considered upto five years
from the date of death" refers to the period
of five years of death on a date when the
Scheme was already in force in the Bank;
not five years or a little short of that time
antedating the introduction of the Scheme."

16. Like the case in Bechan Giri, in
the scheme, that was introduced vide
circular dated 10.05.2019, the retrospective
operation
for
an
employee
of
the
petitioner's father's class is limited to
08.02.2019, whereas the petitioner's father
passed away on 28.08.2018. On the date
that he died, therefore, the scheme
providing
for
a
general
right
to
compassionate appointment had not come
into force. On that date, the scheme in force
provided for compassionate appointment in
two
contingencies
mentioned
in
the
impugned order, which are not attracted to
the petitioner's case at all. The petitioner's
father having died before the date on which
806 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the
new
scheme
for
compassionate
appointment enforced through circular
dated 10.05.2019, had become effective i.e.
08.02.2019, the petitioner cannot claim a
right to compassionate appointment under
the Finance Ministry's scheme or the
circular dated 10.05.2019. He had, in fact,
no right to compassionate appointment, as
rightly held by the Bank.

17. In this view of the matter, there is
no force in this writ petition. It is,
accordingly, dismissed.

18. There shall be no order as to costs.
----------
(2024) 2 ILRA 806
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 09.01.2024

BEFORE

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

Writ - A No. 7942 of 2023

Ram Prasad Dwivedi ...Petitioner
Versus
The State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Mr. Girish Chandra Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Mr. Vimlesh Kumar Rai, Mr. Suresh
Singh

A. Uttar Pradesh Government Servants
(Medical
Attendance)
Rules,
2011
-
Adoption by U.P. Jal Nigam -
Medical
reimbursement
claim
for
cancer
treatment at Mahamana Pandit Madan Mohan
Malaviya Cancer Centre (a unit of Tata Memorial
Centre, Mumbai, a Govt. of India grant-in-aid
institute) - Denial on ground of being "private
hospital" - Whether sustainable.

Held: Para 9-13
The 2011 Rules stand adopted by the Board of
Directors of U.P. Jal Nigam through office
memorandum dated 28.06.2016. The said
Scheme
permits
reimbursement
even
for
treatment in private hospitals recognized by the
St./Central Government, subject to certain
conditions. MPMMCC being a unit of Tata
Memorial Centre (grant-in-aid by Department of
Atomic Energy, Govt. of India) cannot be
treated as a private hospital for denial of claim.

B. Interpretation of Office Memoranda vis-à-vis
Statutory Rules -
Whether a subsequent memo dated 13.07.2020,
prohibiting reimbursement for private hospitals,
overrides adoption of 2011 Rules and memo of
2016.

Held: Paras 6, 9, 14-15
Once the Board has adopted the 2011 Rules and
framed the 2016 Scheme accordingly, a later
office memo by the Managing Director cannot
defeat statutory adoption. The binding scheme
remains the 2016 memorandum.

C. Scheme of 2016 - Requirement of Referral &
Prior Permission - Non-Compliance - Effect.
Held: Paras 11-13
Although the Scheme requires referral from
Government hospital and prior permission of
Chairman, such technical lapses cannot defeat
genuine claims, particularly of senior citizens
suffering from life-threatening diseases like
cancer. Rules must receive a liberal construction
to advance their purpose.

D. Writ Jurisdiction - Objection that impugned
rejection order not challenged - Sustainability.
Held: Para 6
Mandamus being a writ of widest amplitude,
relief cannot be denied merely because specific
order not challenged. Writ jurisdiction is
essentially equitable and technical objections
cannot bar relief where justice demands.

Writ petition partly allowed.

Petitioner directed to resubmit his claim in
prescribed proforma under 2016 Scheme.
Respondents to process and dispose of claim
within one month, bearing in mind Court's
directions and affidavit of Principal Secretary
dated 16.07.2023. No order as to costs.