Vaibhav vs Counsel for Petitioner(s)

1. Heard Mr. Gopal Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent and Mr. Sarvjeet Singh Chauhan, Advocate holding brief of Mr. K. K. Rao, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 5.

2. The present writ petition has been filed inter-alia for the following reliefs:- "a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's application dated 08.02.2023 for compassionate appointment under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974, in a just, fair, and equitable manner, in accordance with law and in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ganesh Shankar Shukla v. State of U.P. & Anr. (Annexure No. 6); b) Set aside the impugned order dated 08.01.2025 (Annexure No. 1) passed by the Executive Engineer, DVVNL, Shikohabad, rejecting the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment; c) Direct the respondents to reserve one suitable post for the petitioner and consider his claim on merits within a stipulated time frame: d) Pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's father, 2 WRIA No. 15486 of 2025 who was employed as a Kushaal Shramik (Skilled Labourer) in the office of the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, DVVNL, Shikohabad, District Firozabad, and was posted at the 33/11 K.V. Sub- Station, Nagla Khanga, died in harness on 14.01.2015. He further submits that the petitioner's mother had expired earlier on 11.08.2012, prior to the death of his father. At the time of his father's demise, the petitioner was only 11 years and 12 days old, and his younger brother was merely 4 years, 11 months, and 5 days old. After their father's demise, the petitioner and his brother were taken care of by their grandmother, who was about 70 years old at that time. The family survived solely on a meagre family pension and had no other substantial means of livelihood. Therefore, after attaining the majority, the petitioner moved an application before respondent no.5, seeking appointment on compassionate grounds under the provisions of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1974"). Despite several representations drawing attention to the hardship and adverse circumstances faced by the petitioner's family, the impugned order dated 08.01.2025 has been passed, rejecting the petitioner's claim solely on the ground that the application was filed after a lapse of five years from the date of his father's death, and therefore, the same could not be considered.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ganesh Shankar Shukla vs. State of U.P. and Another, reported in 2022 SCC Online (SC) 1908, submits that in a similar situation, where the minor children were financially supported only by their maternal grandparents, the respondent is not justified in raising a mere technical plea of delay in seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The Apex Court in that case directed the authorities to consider the claim for appointment of the appellant therein keeping in mind the hardship faced by the minor children, who lost their parents, and also the fact that they were taken care of by their maternal grandparents.

5. He, therefore, submits that a direction may be issued to respondent no. 5 to consider the claim of the petitioner looking into the financial distress, difficulties, and hardship faced by him as his parents had already died and 3 WRIA No. 15486 of 2025 he was taken care of by his grandmother. He further submits that the petitioner has also a younger brother, who is dependent on him, and in case the appointment is not given, the children will be on the verge of starvation.

6. Learned Standing Counsel does not dispute the aforesaid facts and submits that the judgment cited by the counsel for the petitioner is applicable to the present facts of the case.

7. In the case of Ganesh Shankar Shukla vs. State of U.P. and Another, reported in 2022 SCC Online (SC) 1908, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the strict provision under Rule 5 of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying- in-Harness Rules, 1974, cannot be applied rigidly in cases where the applicant was a minor at the time of the death of the deceased employee. The Apex Court further observed that, even though the dependents survived for many years after the demise of the employee relying on the support of relatives, the technical ground of delay in filing the application for compassionate appointment was not sustainable. Consequently, the Court directed that appointment to be granted to the applicant therein.

8. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 08.01.2025, passed by respondent no.5 is hereby quashed.

9. The matter is remanded to respondent no.5, i.e. Executive Engineer, DVVNL, Shikohabad, for reconsideration of the petitioner's claim, afresh. While doing so, the authority concerned shall ignore any delay, and consider the matter sympathetically, strictly in accordance with law as well as keeping in mind the observations made in the judgment rendered in and Ganesh Shankar Shukla (supra). A reasoned and speaking order shall be passed, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, expeditiously and preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment. (Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.) October 15, 2025 Jitendra/- 4 WRIA No. 15486 of 2025 JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Mr. Gopal Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent and Mr. Sarvjeet Singh Chauhan, Advocate holding brief of Mr. K. K. Rao, learned counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 5.

2. The present writ petition has been filed inter-alia for the following reliefs:- "a) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's application dated 08.02.2023 for compassionate appointment under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974, in a just, fair, and equitable manner, in accordance with law and in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ganesh Shankar Shukla v. State of U.P. & Anr. (Annexure No. 6); b) Set aside the impugned order dated 08.01.2025 (Annexure No. 1) passed by the Executive Engineer, DVVNL, Shikohabad, rejecting the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment; c) Direct the respondents to reserve one suitable post for the petitioner and consider his claim on merits within a stipulated time frame: d) Pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's father, 2 WRIA No. 15486 of 2025 who was employed as a Kushaal Shramik (Skilled Labourer) in the office of the Executive Engineer, Electricity Distribution Division, DVVNL, Shikohabad, District Firozabad, and was posted at the 33/11 K.V. Sub- Station, Nagla Khanga, died in harness on 14.01.2015. He further submits that the petitioner's mother had expired earlier on 11.08.2012, prior to the death of his father. At the time of his father's demise, the petitioner was only 11 years and 12 days old, and his younger brother was merely 4 years, 11 months, and 5 days old. After their father's demise, the petitioner and his brother were taken care of by their grandmother, who was about 70 years old at that time. The family survived solely on a meagre family pension and had no other substantial means of livelihood. Therefore, after attaining the majority, the petitioner moved an application before respondent no.5, seeking appointment on compassionate grounds under the provisions of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules, 1974"). Despite several representations drawing attention to the hardship and adverse circumstances faced by the petitioner's family, the impugned order dated 08.01.2025 has been passed, rejecting the petitioner's claim solely on the ground that the application was filed after a lapse of five years from the date of his father's death, and therefore, the same could not be considered.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Ganesh Shankar Shukla vs. State of U.P. and Another, reported in 2022 SCC Online (SC) 1908, submits that in a similar situation, where the minor children were financially supported only by their maternal grandparents, the respondent is not justified in raising a mere technical plea of delay in seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. The Apex Court in that case directed the authorities to consider the claim for appointment of the appellant therein keeping in mind the hardship faced by the minor children, who lost their parents, and also the fact that they were taken care of by their maternal grandparents.

5. He, therefore, submits that a direction may be issued to respondent no. 5 to consider the claim of the petitioner looking into the financial distress, difficulties, and hardship faced by him as his parents had already died and 3 WRIA No. 15486 of 2025 he was taken care of by his grandmother. He further submits that the petitioner has also a younger brother, who is dependent on him, and in case the appointment is not given, the children will be on the verge of starvation.

6. Learned Standing Counsel does not dispute the aforesaid facts and submits that the judgment cited by the counsel for the petitioner is applicable to the present facts of the case.

7. In the case of Ganesh Shankar Shukla vs. State of U.P. and Another, reported in 2022 SCC Online (SC) 1908, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the strict provision under Rule 5 of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying- in-Harness Rules, 1974, cannot be applied rigidly in cases where the applicant was a minor at the time of the death of the deceased employee. The Apex Court further observed that, even though the dependents survived for many years after the demise of the employee relying on the support of relatives, the technical ground of delay in filing the application for compassionate appointment was not sustainable. Consequently, the Court directed that appointment to be granted to the applicant therein.

8. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. Consequently, the impugned order dated 08.01.2025, passed by respondent no.5 is hereby quashed.

9. The matter is remanded to respondent no.5, i.e. Executive Engineer, DVVNL, Shikohabad, for reconsideration of the petitioner's claim, afresh. While doing so, the authority concerned shall ignore any delay, and consider the matter sympathetically, strictly in accordance with law as well as keeping in mind the observations made in the judgment rendered in and Ganesh Shankar Shukla (supra). A reasoned and speaking order shall be passed, after affording due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, expeditiously and preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment. (Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.) October 15, 2025 Jitendra/- 4 WRIA No. 15486 of 2025 JITENDRA KUMAR YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad