Others v. Counsel for

whereby, the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging an order dated

31.05.2023 removing him from service has been allowed and the order dated

31.05.2023 has been quashed. The appellants have been directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits.

3. The petitioner was appointed on compassionate basis on the post of Junior Clerk by the order of the appellant (District Basic Education Officer) on

12.07.2001. The said appointment was made on compassionate basis as the father of the petitioner, who was an Assistant Teacher in Junior Highschool, Toksin Block, Tehsil Mursan, District Hathras, died in harness on

02.01.1998. He was survived by his wife, one son-the petitioner herein, and two daughters. The petitioner started working in pursuance of appointment letter dated 12.07.2001. It seems that after he had worked for more than a decade, a complaint was made against him by one Virendra Kumar Sharma that the appointment of the petitioner was contrary to the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules 1974') as the mother of the petitioner was working as Assistant Teacher in Prathmik Vidhyalay, Bahrampur, District Aligarh at the time the petitioner was 2 SPLA No. 843 of 2025 appointed on compassionate basis and the said fact was concealed by the petitioner. On basis of the said complaint, the appellant initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. Ultimately, by order dated 31.05.2023, the petitioner has been removed from service, inter alia, holding that the petitioner had succeeded in getting appointment on compassionate basis concealing the fact that his mother was an employee in the department as Assistant Teacher and this amounts to fraud. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the writ petition bearing Writ-A No.12839 of 2023 and the said writ petition has been allowed giving rise the the instant appeal.

4. It is undisputed that the mother of the petitioner was working as Assistant Teacher in the same department at the time the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment. The District Basic Education Officer vide letter dated 26.05.2000 forwarded the application of the petitioner to Assistant District Basic Education Officer, Mursan, Hathras for holding enquiry. On the basis of application of the petitioner and the enquiry held through Assistant District Basic Education Officer, Mursan, Hathras, the District Basic Education Officer by order dated 12.07.2001 offered appointment to the petitioner on the post of Junior Clerk. Learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the long period of service for which petitioner has worked; the fact that there is no prescribed proforma for seeking compassionate appointment and consequently, it cannot be said that there was any concealment by the petitioner; that it was the duty of the department to have carried out due diligence and verification before making the appointment; and the judgments of Supreme Court holding that where the employee has worked for long duration, it is not open to the employer to terminate the employment if no fraud is found on part of the employee.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appointment of the petitioner was invalid as it violates Rule 5 of the Rules, 1974. He further submits that in the affidavit filed by the petitioner as well as by his mother and two sisters, they actively concealed the fact that the mother was already in employment of the department as Assistant Teacher.

6. On the other hand, Shri Adarsh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not made any concealment. The petitioner was appointed after the appellant got enquiry conducted through the Assistant District Basic Education Officer. The mother of the petitioner was in employment as Assistant Teacher in the same department. The department 3 SPLA No. 843 of 2025 was aware of the full facts. In support of the said submission, he refers to an affidavit filed by the mother of the petitioner dated 28.07.2000 before the Accounts Officer and the District Basic Education Officer, Hathras for payment of family pension and in paragraph-3 whereof, she specifically disclosed that she was working as Assistant Teacher in Junior Highschool Bahrampur, District Aligarh. He further submits that the petitioner has been granted promotion on 16.11.2006 to the post of Senior Clerk and at the time of removal from service, he had worked for more than 22 years. He places reliance on various judgments of the Supreme Court in submitting that learned Single Judge has rightly not approved the order of removal, as the charge of fraud and misrepresentation was not found to be established.

7. We have considered rival submissions and perused the material placed on record.

8. Indisputably, the mother of the petitioner was in employement as Assistant Teacher in Prathmik Vidhyalay, Bahrampur, District Aligarh at the time, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment. It is also not in dispute that under the Rules 1974, there is no prescribed proforma for making application for compassionate appointment. The petitioner was also never required by the department to make any disclosure regarding employment of family members. The affidavits which were obtained from the mother and sisters was for confirming that they were not having any objection to the grant of compassionate employment to him. The mother of the petitioner, in her affidavit dated 28.07.2000, clearly mentioned the fact that she was working as Assistant Teacher in an Institution governed by the appellant. Thus, we find no illegality in the finding of learned Single Judge that charge of fraud or misrepresentation on part of the petitioner was not established. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner had put in 22 years of service at the time, the order of removal came to be passed. During this period, the petitioner was also promoted to the post of Senior Clerk. The mother of the petitioner, who was in employment as Assistant Teacher has died on 30.09.2010. It can be safely assumed that the petitioner in view of his employment, must have incurred various liabilities.

9. In Mohd. Zamil Ahmed vs. State of Bihar reported in (2016)12 SCC 342, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the compassionate appointment of a person who was brother of the deceased. It is held that the State was aware of the legal position that the brother does not fall within the 4 SPLA No. 843 of 2025 definition of "dependant" still the appointment was offered and the person had worked for fifteen years, therefore, after so many years, it would not be proper to interfere with the appointment. The relevant observations of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Zamil Ahmed (supra) are as follows: "11. Keeping in view the peculiar undisputed facts of the case and having regard to the totality of the circumstances, we are of the considered view that the State was not justified in terminating the appellant's services. In other words, the ground on which the appellant's services were terminated by the State after a period of 15 years of the appellant's appointment does not appear to be well founded. This we say for the following reasons: ... ... ... ... ...

11.3. Thirdly, there was no one in the family of the deceased to claim compassionate appointment except the appellant who, as mentioned above, was the close relative of the deceased i.e. real younger brother and used to live with the deceased. He was otherwise eligible to claim such appointment being major, educated and only male member in the family.

13. The fact that the appellant was the younger brother of the deceased was within the knowledge of the State. Similarly, the State was aware that the brother does not fall within the definition of "dependant" at the relevant time and still the State authorities obtained the undertaking from the appellant that he would maintain the family of the deceased once given the appointment."

10. Learned Single Judge has also placed on reliance on the judgment in Special Appeal No. 5 of 2025 (State of U.P. through its Principal Secretary and 2 Others vs. Smt. Sugandha Upadhyay) decided on

24.01.2025. The relevant part of which is as follows: "8. Learned Single Judge had mentioned that she had not stated that her mother was not employed with the State Government or the Central Government or any corporation owned or controlled either by the State Government or the Central Government. Learned Single Judge had also found that the mother of the 5 SPLA No. 843 of 2025 petitioner was employed as Class-IV employee in the Labour Department itself and it was not believable that the Selection Committee and the Appointing Authority had no knowledge or information regarding the fact that the mother of the petitioner was already employed with the same department of the State Government. Learned Single Judge has thereafter found that there was absolutely no fraud committed by the petitioner. He had also found that the petitioner had already worked for ten years and her services had been confirmed and also the petitioner had been promoted after her initial appointment and the writ petition thereafter was allowed.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that when there is a fraud committed then no length of service had to be seen and that no departmental inquiry etc. had to be gone into. He submits that fraud had been committed therefore the services of the petitioner had to be done away with, and in support of this submission, he relied on the decisions in Anoop Kumar Srivastava Vs. State of UP and others, 2021 (6) AWC 5341, and Sumit Kumar Verma Vs. State of UP and others 2022 (2) AWC 1683 (LB).

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner (respondent herein) has submitted that the petitioner had not concealed any aspect of the matter. All facts were disclosed by the petitioner. Mother of the petitioner had given an affidavit to the effect that she had no objection to the appointment of the petitioner. The appointment was preceded by a full fledged proceeding wherein the Selection Committee of the Department where the mother was working had assembled and thereafter the department itself had issued the appointment letter. Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore states that the judgments which had been relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants had no application in the present case."

11. It is true that the petitioner did not state that his mother was in employment but we find that there was also no misstatement or misrepresentation by the petitioner. There was sufficient material before the appellant, including affidavit of the mother of the petitioner dated 6 SPLA No. 843 of 2025

28.07.2000, to indicate that the mother of the petitioner was in employment as an Assistant Teacher. The appointment was given after holding enquiry through the Assistant District Basic Education Officer. In the said background, we decline to interfere with the order of learned Single Judge.

12. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed. September 22, 2025 Mukesh Kr. (Arun Kumar,J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.) MUKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

whereby, the writ petition filed by the petitioner challenging an order dated

31.05.2023 removing him from service has been allowed and the order dated

31.05.2023 has been quashed. The appellants have been directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits.

3. The petitioner was appointed on compassionate basis on the post of Junior Clerk by the order of the appellant (District Basic Education Officer) on

12.07.2001. The said appointment was made on compassionate basis as the father of the petitioner, who was an Assistant Teacher in Junior Highschool, Toksin Block, Tehsil Mursan, District Hathras, died in harness on

02.01.1998. He was survived by his wife, one son-the petitioner herein, and two daughters. The petitioner started working in pursuance of appointment letter dated 12.07.2001. It seems that after he had worked for more than a decade, a complaint was made against him by one Virendra Kumar Sharma that the appointment of the petitioner was contrary to the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules 1974') as the mother of the petitioner was working as Assistant Teacher in Prathmik Vidhyalay, Bahrampur, District Aligarh at the time the petitioner was 2 SPLA No. 843 of 2025 appointed on compassionate basis and the said fact was concealed by the petitioner. On basis of the said complaint, the appellant initiated disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. Ultimately, by order dated 31.05.2023, the petitioner has been removed from service, inter alia, holding that the petitioner had succeeded in getting appointment on compassionate basis concealing the fact that his mother was an employee in the department as Assistant Teacher and this amounts to fraud. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the writ petition bearing Writ-A No.12839 of 2023 and the said writ petition has been allowed giving rise the the instant appeal.

4. It is undisputed that the mother of the petitioner was working as Assistant Teacher in the same department at the time the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment. The District Basic Education Officer vide letter dated 26.05.2000 forwarded the application of the petitioner to Assistant District Basic Education Officer, Mursan, Hathras for holding enquiry. On the basis of application of the petitioner and the enquiry held through Assistant District Basic Education Officer, Mursan, Hathras, the District Basic Education Officer by order dated 12.07.2001 offered appointment to the petitioner on the post of Junior Clerk. Learned Single Judge has taken into consideration the long period of service for which petitioner has worked; the fact that there is no prescribed proforma for seeking compassionate appointment and consequently, it cannot be said that there was any concealment by the petitioner; that it was the duty of the department to have carried out due diligence and verification before making the appointment; and the judgments of Supreme Court holding that where the employee has worked for long duration, it is not open to the employer to terminate the employment if no fraud is found on part of the employee.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appointment of the petitioner was invalid as it violates Rule 5 of the Rules, 1974. He further submits that in the affidavit filed by the petitioner as well as by his mother and two sisters, they actively concealed the fact that the mother was already in employment of the department as Assistant Teacher.

6. On the other hand, Shri Adarsh Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not made any concealment. The petitioner was appointed after the appellant got enquiry conducted through the Assistant District Basic Education Officer. The mother of the petitioner was in employment as Assistant Teacher in the same department. The department 3 SPLA No. 843 of 2025 was aware of the full facts. In support of the said submission, he refers to an affidavit filed by the mother of the petitioner dated 28.07.2000 before the Accounts Officer and the District Basic Education Officer, Hathras for payment of family pension and in paragraph-3 whereof, she specifically disclosed that she was working as Assistant Teacher in Junior Highschool Bahrampur, District Aligarh. He further submits that the petitioner has been granted promotion on 16.11.2006 to the post of Senior Clerk and at the time of removal from service, he had worked for more than 22 years. He places reliance on various judgments of the Supreme Court in submitting that learned Single Judge has rightly not approved the order of removal, as the charge of fraud and misrepresentation was not found to be established.

7. We have considered rival submissions and perused the material placed on record.

8. Indisputably, the mother of the petitioner was in employement as Assistant Teacher in Prathmik Vidhyalay, Bahrampur, District Aligarh at the time, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment. It is also not in dispute that under the Rules 1974, there is no prescribed proforma for making application for compassionate appointment. The petitioner was also never required by the department to make any disclosure regarding employment of family members. The affidavits which were obtained from the mother and sisters was for confirming that they were not having any objection to the grant of compassionate employment to him. The mother of the petitioner, in her affidavit dated 28.07.2000, clearly mentioned the fact that she was working as Assistant Teacher in an Institution governed by the appellant. Thus, we find no illegality in the finding of learned Single Judge that charge of fraud or misrepresentation on part of the petitioner was not established. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner had put in 22 years of service at the time, the order of removal came to be passed. During this period, the petitioner was also promoted to the post of Senior Clerk. The mother of the petitioner, who was in employment as Assistant Teacher has died on 30.09.2010. It can be safely assumed that the petitioner in view of his employment, must have incurred various liabilities.

9. In Mohd. Zamil Ahmed vs. State of Bihar reported in (2016)12 SCC 342, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the compassionate appointment of a person who was brother of the deceased. It is held that the State was aware of the legal position that the brother does not fall within the 4 SPLA No. 843 of 2025 definition of "dependant" still the appointment was offered and the person had worked for fifteen years, therefore, after so many years, it would not be proper to interfere with the appointment. The relevant observations of the Supreme Court in Mohd. Zamil Ahmed (supra) are as follows: "11. Keeping in view the peculiar undisputed facts of the case and having regard to the totality of the circumstances, we are of the considered view that the State was not justified in terminating the appellant's services. In other words, the ground on which the appellant's services were terminated by the State after a period of 15 years of the appellant's appointment does not appear to be well founded. This we say for the following reasons: ... ... ... ... ...

11.3. Thirdly, there was no one in the family of the deceased to claim compassionate appointment except the appellant who, as mentioned above, was the close relative of the deceased i.e. real younger brother and used to live with the deceased. He was otherwise eligible to claim such appointment being major, educated and only male member in the family.

13. The fact that the appellant was the younger brother of the deceased was within the knowledge of the State. Similarly, the State was aware that the brother does not fall within the definition of "dependant" at the relevant time and still the State authorities obtained the undertaking from the appellant that he would maintain the family of the deceased once given the appointment."

10. Learned Single Judge has also placed on reliance on the judgment in Special Appeal No. 5 of 2025 (State of U.P. through its Principal Secretary and 2 Others vs. Smt. Sugandha Upadhyay) decided on

24.01.2025. The relevant part of which is as follows: "8. Learned Single Judge had mentioned that she had not stated that her mother was not employed with the State Government or the Central Government or any corporation owned or controlled either by the State Government or the Central Government. Learned Single Judge had also found that the mother of the 5 SPLA No. 843 of 2025 petitioner was employed as Class-IV employee in the Labour Department itself and it was not believable that the Selection Committee and the Appointing Authority had no knowledge or information regarding the fact that the mother of the petitioner was already employed with the same department of the State Government. Learned Single Judge has thereafter found that there was absolutely no fraud committed by the petitioner. He had also found that the petitioner had already worked for ten years and her services had been confirmed and also the petitioner had been promoted after her initial appointment and the writ petition thereafter was allowed.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that when there is a fraud committed then no length of service had to be seen and that no departmental inquiry etc. had to be gone into. He submits that fraud had been committed therefore the services of the petitioner had to be done away with, and in support of this submission, he relied on the decisions in Anoop Kumar Srivastava Vs. State of UP and others, 2021 (6) AWC 5341, and Sumit Kumar Verma Vs. State of UP and others 2022 (2) AWC 1683 (LB).

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner (respondent herein) has submitted that the petitioner had not concealed any aspect of the matter. All facts were disclosed by the petitioner. Mother of the petitioner had given an affidavit to the effect that she had no objection to the appointment of the petitioner. The appointment was preceded by a full fledged proceeding wherein the Selection Committee of the Department where the mother was working had assembled and thereafter the department itself had issued the appointment letter. Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore states that the judgments which had been relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants had no application in the present case."

11. It is true that the petitioner did not state that his mother was in employment but we find that there was also no misstatement or misrepresentation by the petitioner. There was sufficient material before the appellant, including affidavit of the mother of the petitioner dated 6 SPLA No. 843 of 2025

28.07.2000, to indicate that the mother of the petitioner was in employment as an Assistant Teacher. The appointment was given after holding enquiry through the Assistant District Basic Education Officer. In the said background, we decline to interfere with the order of learned Single Judge.

12. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed. September 22, 2025 Mukesh Kr. (Arun Kumar,J.) (Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.) MUKESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad