High Court · 2025

on compassionate ground being the dependents of the deceased employee Sri Neeraj Kumar who died in harness on 4.7.2024."

2. The case of the non-appellants was that they are minor daughter and son respectively of late Neeraj Kumar and Shambha Devi (appellant herein). Their father, Neeraj Kumar died while in harness. In the said context, the non-appellants, represented through their grandfather, prayed for payment of post death dues to them and also consider their candidature for compassionate appointment. The learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition by the following order: "1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Petitioners who are minor daughter and son of Late Neeraj Kumar have set up a claim before this Court under the guardianship of their grandfather for release of terminal dues of Late Neeraj Kumar and also compassionate appointment.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that while the District Development Officer, Gorakhpur has passed order dated 24.02.2025 directing the parties namely, Sambha Devi (respondent no.5) and Dropadi Devi (grand mother of the present petitioners) to get their succession declared from competent court of law and both the parties have filed their case in the civil court, Sambha Devi claims to be the wife of Late Neeraj Kumar have filed a petition before this Court being Writ A No.4489 of 20250 decided on

10.04.2025.

4. In view of the above, this petition stands disposed of with direction to the respondent concerned to look into and consider the claim of the petitioners as well while deciding the issue of terminal dues of Late Neeraj Kumar and compassionate appointment and it would be well in the fitness of things that he awaits the final outcome of the pending civil suit for succession despite the order passed by this Court on 10.04.2025."

3. The appellant herein was respondent no. 5 to the writ petition filed by the minors. It has been specifically asserted in paragraph- 21 of the affidavit filed in support of memo of appeal that the writ petition was disposed of without any notice and opportunity of hearing to the appellant herein. A perusal of the impugned order of learned Single Judge reveals that although, there was mention in the said order that counsel for the parties were heard but there is no evidence on record to indicate that at the relevant time any one represented the appellant in the writ proceedings.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that earlier the appellant had approached this Court by filing Writ-A No. 4489 of 2025 praying for payment of the terminal dues to her and for according consideration to her application for compassionate appointment. The said writ petition was disposed of on 10.04.2025 by the same Bench by the following order: "1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner is claiming a direction in the nature of writ of mandamus to the concerned competent respondents to decide the claim for compassionate appointment.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that her husband having died on 04.07.2024, she became entitled for compassionate appointment and also for terminal dues which has not been paid to her till date.

4. In the given facts and circumstances, petitioner is directed to file a fresh representation seeking compassionate appointment before respondent no.4 within four weeks from today and in the event any such representation is made alongwith application demanding dues annexing therewith all the records, respondent no.4 shall be passing appropriate orders in the first instance directing for release of entire terminal dues in favour of the petitioner positively within a maximum period of 30 days. Claim for compassionate appointment shall also be accorded due consideration and appropriate decision shall be taken in this regard within a period of two months of production of certified copy of this order along with representation.

5. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this petition stands disposed of."

5. It is urged that the minors cannot make any claim for compassionate appointment and the appellant being widow of deceased Government employee was entitled for her application for compassionate appointment being considered. It is also submitted that in respect of terminal dues also till the time the order dated 10.04.2025 passed in writ petition filed by the appellant is not varied or recalled, learned Single Judge was not justified in passing the impugned order directing that the payment of terminal dues should await the final outcome of the pending civil suit for succession. It is submitted that on account of the nature of direction issued by learned Single Judge the fact that the appellant was not provided with any opportunity of hearing and the impugned order was passed without issuing any notice to her assumes significance.

6. Learned counsel for the minors concedes that in the writ petition although, the appellant was impleaded as respondent no. 5 but she was not represented at that time. He also concedes that till date the minors have not filed any application for modification of the order dated 10.04.2025 nor have challenged the said order.

7. Once, the same Single Judge has disposed of the previous writ petition filed by the appellant by his order dated 10.04.2025 directing the State respondents to pass "appropriate orders in the first instance directing for release of terminal dues in favour of the petitioner positively within a period of thirty days." the order passed in subsequent writ petition filed by the minors to await the outcome of the succession case definitely has effect of modifying the previous order. This, in our considered opinion, could not have been done without there being any application by the minors to modify or recall the order passed in previous writ petition and that too without hearing the appellant.

8. In the facts and circumstances, noted above, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained and is accordingly, set aside. The writ petition shall be restored to its original number and shall be decided after proper opportunity of hearing to the appellant. Meanwhile, till the writ petition is decided, the terminal dues of the deceased shall not be paid to any party.

9. We leave it open to the minors to move application for recall of the order dated 10.04.2025 or challenge the same in the manner permissible under law and in such case, any observation made herein would not be an impediment in deciding the said proceedings.

10. Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed. (R.M.N. Mishra, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 11.8.2025 GANESH PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

on compassionate ground being the dependents of the deceased employee Sri Neeraj Kumar who died in harness on 4.7.2024."

2. The case of the non-appellants was that they are minor daughter and son respectively of late Neeraj Kumar and Shambha Devi (appellant herein). Their father, Neeraj Kumar died while in harness. In the said context, the non-appellants, represented through their grandfather, prayed for payment of post death dues to them and also consider their candidature for compassionate appointment. The learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition by the following order: "1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Petitioners who are minor daughter and son of Late Neeraj Kumar have set up a claim before this Court under the guardianship of their grandfather for release of terminal dues of Late Neeraj Kumar and also compassionate appointment.

3. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that while the District Development Officer, Gorakhpur has passed order dated 24.02.2025 directing the parties namely, Sambha Devi (respondent no.5) and Dropadi Devi (grand mother of the present petitioners) to get their succession declared from competent court of law and both the parties have filed their case in the civil court, Sambha Devi claims to be the wife of Late Neeraj Kumar have filed a petition before this Court being Writ A No.4489 of 20250 decided on

10.04.2025.

4. In view of the above, this petition stands disposed of with direction to the respondent concerned to look into and consider the claim of the petitioners as well while deciding the issue of terminal dues of Late Neeraj Kumar and compassionate appointment and it would be well in the fitness of things that he awaits the final outcome of the pending civil suit for succession despite the order passed by this Court on 10.04.2025."

3. The appellant herein was respondent no. 5 to the writ petition filed by the minors. It has been specifically asserted in paragraph- 21 of the affidavit filed in support of memo of appeal that the writ petition was disposed of without any notice and opportunity of hearing to the appellant herein. A perusal of the impugned order of learned Single Judge reveals that although, there was mention in the said order that counsel for the parties were heard but there is no evidence on record to indicate that at the relevant time any one represented the appellant in the writ proceedings.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that earlier the appellant had approached this Court by filing Writ-A No. 4489 of 2025 praying for payment of the terminal dues to her and for according consideration to her application for compassionate appointment. The said writ petition was disposed of on 10.04.2025 by the same Bench by the following order: "1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India, the petitioner is claiming a direction in the nature of writ of mandamus to the concerned competent respondents to decide the claim for compassionate appointment.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that her husband having died on 04.07.2024, she became entitled for compassionate appointment and also for terminal dues which has not been paid to her till date.

4. In the given facts and circumstances, petitioner is directed to file a fresh representation seeking compassionate appointment before respondent no.4 within four weeks from today and in the event any such representation is made alongwith application demanding dues annexing therewith all the records, respondent no.4 shall be passing appropriate orders in the first instance directing for release of entire terminal dues in favour of the petitioner positively within a maximum period of 30 days. Claim for compassionate appointment shall also be accorded due consideration and appropriate decision shall be taken in this regard within a period of two months of production of certified copy of this order along with representation.

5. With the aforesaid observations and directions, this petition stands disposed of."

5. It is urged that the minors cannot make any claim for compassionate appointment and the appellant being widow of deceased Government employee was entitled for her application for compassionate appointment being considered. It is also submitted that in respect of terminal dues also till the time the order dated 10.04.2025 passed in writ petition filed by the appellant is not varied or recalled, learned Single Judge was not justified in passing the impugned order directing that the payment of terminal dues should await the final outcome of the pending civil suit for succession. It is submitted that on account of the nature of direction issued by learned Single Judge the fact that the appellant was not provided with any opportunity of hearing and the impugned order was passed without issuing any notice to her assumes significance.

6. Learned counsel for the minors concedes that in the writ petition although, the appellant was impleaded as respondent no. 5 but she was not represented at that time. He also concedes that till date the minors have not filed any application for modification of the order dated 10.04.2025 nor have challenged the said order.

7. Once, the same Single Judge has disposed of the previous writ petition filed by the appellant by his order dated 10.04.2025 directing the State respondents to pass "appropriate orders in the first instance directing for release of terminal dues in favour of the petitioner positively within a period of thirty days." the order passed in subsequent writ petition filed by the minors to await the outcome of the succession case definitely has effect of modifying the previous order. This, in our considered opinion, could not have been done without there being any application by the minors to modify or recall the order passed in previous writ petition and that too without hearing the appellant.

8. In the facts and circumstances, noted above, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order cannot be sustained and is accordingly, set aside. The writ petition shall be restored to its original number and shall be decided after proper opportunity of hearing to the appellant. Meanwhile, till the writ petition is decided, the terminal dues of the deceased shall not be paid to any party.

9. We leave it open to the minors to move application for recall of the order dated 10.04.2025 or challenge the same in the manner permissible under law and in such case, any observation made herein would not be an impediment in deciding the said proceedings.

10. Accordingly, the appeal stands allowed. (R.M.N. Mishra, J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) Order Date :- 11.8.2025 GANESH PRAKASH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad