High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri S.K. Verma, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondents.

2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that father of the petitioner late Ramcharan was appointed as a seasonal collection peon on 01.09.1989 and died on 13.06.2023. The petitioner duly eligible and qualified for being appointed under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependent of Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1974) had moved an application for grant of compassionate appointment and the same has been rejected by the respondents stating that the services of the father of the petitioner were never regularised and consequently the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of the Rules of 1974 for compassionate appointment.

3. It was further stated that in the financial year 2018-2019 and 2021-2022 the process for regularisation was carried out and all the persons who on the particular date had not crossed the age of 45 years were duly considered for regularisation but as the age of the father of the petitioner had crossed the age of 45 years consequently his candidature was not considered. It was further stated that the father of the petitioner was never raised any objection and consequelty the application of the petitioner has been rejected.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that under the Uttar Pradesh Collection Peon Service Rules, 2004 amended in 2016, 50% post of substantial vacancy of Collection Peon are filled up from amongst seasonal collection peon who have completed at leaset 4 fasalies of satisfactory work and have not attained the age of 45 years.

5. It has been stated that father of the petitioner was initially appointed on 01.09.1989 and contentiously working up to 12.06.2023 and rendered 34 years of service in the department without any interference. He has further submitted that the juniors to the father of the petitioner were duly regularised but in a most illegal and arbitrary manner the candidature of the father of the petitioner were never considered. He has further stated that according to the Government Order dated 30.05.2008 a provision has been made for giving age relaxation to the Peon / Seasonal Collection Amin who have crossed the age of 45 years and the said government order was duly taken note and interpreted by this Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others Writ A No. 6714 of 2014 and the aspect of age relaxation which is an issue which has to be considered by the State Government before rejecting the claim of any seasonal collection peon for regularisation. Accordingly, he submits that the respondents have illegally and arbitrarily not considered the case of the father of the petitioner for regularisation and consequently rejected his claim for appointment under Rules of 1974 and prayed for a suitable direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment holding that his father had been duly regularised at the appropriate time when his juniors were so regularised.

6. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has opposed the writ petition. He has submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order where adequate reasons have been given for not regularising the services of the father of the petitioner. He further submits that according to the rules, only persons who have not crossed the age of 45 years were considered for regularised but at the appropriate time the father of the petitioner has crossed the age of 45 years and consequently was not considered for regularisation and hence prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

7. I have heard rival contention and perused the record. The only question which falls for consideration is as to whether father of the petitioner had any right for consideration for regularsation and if so where the respondents failed to discharge his duties to consdier his claim for regularisation and consequently the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has also been rejected. It is noticed that the issue with regard to interpretation of the Government Order dated 30.05.2008 was subject matter of writ petition in the case of Devki Nandan and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, Writ A No. 54923 of 2017 decided on 08.05.2018 where this Court had observed as under :- "In such matters, as per the practice in vogue for the last decade, the recommendation of the selection committee were being forwarded to the State Government after satisfying the requirement of the first condition of second proviso to sub Rule (1) of Rule 5 i.e. the satisfactory service rendered for atleast 4 fasals. The State Government, on the decision of the Governor in exercise of discretionary powers conferred upon him under Relaxation Rules' 1992, had issued orders to approve the recommendations. One such order with regard to 24 Seasonal Collection Amins in district Mirzapur has been brought before the Court to demonstrate that relaxation was granted under rule 3 of Relaxation Rules' 1992. The submission is that the State has to act fairly in all such matters with respect to the similarly situated persons who are petitioners in the present bunch. Being a welfare State, it cannot be allowed to deviate from the procedure adopted by it. The petitioners cannot be discriminated on the ground that the Government order dated 30.05.2008 has been recinded as it runs contrary to the statutory provision and no such power exist as of now. Submission is that the revocation of the Government order dated 30.05.2008 vide Government order 30.10.2017 is of no consequence as far as the powers under Relaxation Rules' 1992 are concerned. Further, Rule 3 of said rules starts with an Non- obstante clause which gives an overriding effect to the said rule. The power conferred upon the Governor to grant relaxation is special and exceptional and the Relaxation Rules 1992 cannot be termed as general rules. They are the specific rules conferring special power upon the Governor to grant relaxation in the maximum age criteria; even if there is anything contrary provided in any rule regulating the maximum age requirement."

8. The Coordinate Bench of this Court accordingly was of the opinion that relaxation Rule 1992 would be attracted to both the sources of recruitment provided under rule 5 of Rules 1974 (as amended by Fifth Amendment Rules' 1992) i.e. (i) open selection; and (ii) by selection of Seasonal Collection Amins to the regular post of Collection Amin against the prescribed quota and also of the view that terming the Relaxation Rules' 1992 a general rule, would be a misconception. A careful reading of the said rule shows that it confers special and exclusive power upon the Governor to grant relaxation in the age criteria provided under any of the rules, relating to a post or service framed by it under this rules making power under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution and disposed of the writ petition after passing following directions:- "Resultantly, all the writ petitions are being disposed of by directing the competent authority under Rule 3 of Rules' 1992 to consider:-

1. Whether there should be relaxation in the matter of maximum age, in the context of Rules' 1992, for such candidates who fall within the zone of consideration on account of increase in quota to 85% (for Seasonal Collection Amin) and 100% (for Seasonal Collection Peon), by amendment of the relevant rules, as a one time measure; but have been excluded on account of being overage though they fulfill all other eligibility requirements of the Rules, for regular appointment.

2. Similarly, a simultaneous decision shall also be taken, in the context of Rules' 1992, with regard to petitioners and other similarly situated employees, whose candidature for regular appointment has been considered under the existing quota of 35% and 50% under the second proviso, but they have been denied regular appointment on being overage and their claims have been rejected by the State-respondents on the ground that there is no provision for grant of age relaxation under the recruitment rules.

3. For the purpose, the State-respondent would be requiring to place all relevant material before the Governor so that all attending circumstances are brought to his notice so as to form an opinion as to whether relaxation is to be granted or not; and the manner in which the said power is to be exercised. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed expeditiously, preferably, within a period of two months from the date of presentation of this order before the competent authority."

9. Accordingly, the entire factual controversy has been settled and the matter has to be duly considered by the State Government with regard to the age relaxation.

10. In the present case also there is no dispute that only reason for denial of relaxation of the services of the father petitioner is the fact that he had crossed 45 of age and this aspect of the matter was considered only at the level of the District Magistrate, Amethi and never traveled upto the State Government as per the judgment of this Court in the case of Devki Nandan (Supra).

11. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds that the claim of the father of the petitioner has not been duly considered in accordance with law and denial of regularisation by a District Magistrate is illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the aforesaid judgment and the same is accordingly set aside.

12. In light of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The matter is remitted to the District Magistrate, Amethi / respondent No. 2 to forward all the papers of the father of the petitioner to the State Government who shall consider and decide the same in light of the directions issued by this Court in the case of Devki Nandan (Supra).

13. In case the State Government considers that father of the petitioner deserves to be regularised then the case for compassionate appointment of the petitioner shall be decided with expedition by respondent No. 2. Order Date :- 7.3.2025 Ravi/ (Alok Mathur, J.) RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri S.K. Verma, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondents.

2. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that father of the petitioner late Ramcharan was appointed as a seasonal collection peon on 01.09.1989 and died on 13.06.2023. The petitioner duly eligible and qualified for being appointed under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependent of Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of 1974) had moved an application for grant of compassionate appointment and the same has been rejected by the respondents stating that the services of the father of the petitioner were never regularised and consequently the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of the Rules of 1974 for compassionate appointment.

3. It was further stated that in the financial year 2018-2019 and 2021-2022 the process for regularisation was carried out and all the persons who on the particular date had not crossed the age of 45 years were duly considered for regularisation but as the age of the father of the petitioner had crossed the age of 45 years consequently his candidature was not considered. It was further stated that the father of the petitioner was never raised any objection and consequelty the application of the petitioner has been rejected.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that under the Uttar Pradesh Collection Peon Service Rules, 2004 amended in 2016, 50% post of substantial vacancy of Collection Peon are filled up from amongst seasonal collection peon who have completed at leaset 4 fasalies of satisfactory work and have not attained the age of 45 years.

5. It has been stated that father of the petitioner was initially appointed on 01.09.1989 and contentiously working up to 12.06.2023 and rendered 34 years of service in the department without any interference. He has further submitted that the juniors to the father of the petitioner were duly regularised but in a most illegal and arbitrary manner the candidature of the father of the petitioner were never considered. He has further stated that according to the Government Order dated 30.05.2008 a provision has been made for giving age relaxation to the Peon / Seasonal Collection Amin who have crossed the age of 45 years and the said government order was duly taken note and interpreted by this Court in the case of Dinesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others Writ A No. 6714 of 2014 and the aspect of age relaxation which is an issue which has to be considered by the State Government before rejecting the claim of any seasonal collection peon for regularisation. Accordingly, he submits that the respondents have illegally and arbitrarily not considered the case of the father of the petitioner for regularisation and consequently rejected his claim for appointment under Rules of 1974 and prayed for a suitable direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment holding that his father had been duly regularised at the appropriate time when his juniors were so regularised.

6. Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has opposed the writ petition. He has submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order where adequate reasons have been given for not regularising the services of the father of the petitioner. He further submits that according to the rules, only persons who have not crossed the age of 45 years were considered for regularised but at the appropriate time the father of the petitioner has crossed the age of 45 years and consequently was not considered for regularisation and hence prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

7. I have heard rival contention and perused the record. The only question which falls for consideration is as to whether father of the petitioner had any right for consideration for regularsation and if so where the respondents failed to discharge his duties to consdier his claim for regularisation and consequently the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has also been rejected. It is noticed that the issue with regard to interpretation of the Government Order dated 30.05.2008 was subject matter of writ petition in the case of Devki Nandan and others Vs. State of U.P. and others, Writ A No. 54923 of 2017 decided on 08.05.2018 where this Court had observed as under :- "In such matters, as per the practice in vogue for the last decade, the recommendation of the selection committee were being forwarded to the State Government after satisfying the requirement of the first condition of second proviso to sub Rule (1) of Rule 5 i.e. the satisfactory service rendered for atleast 4 fasals. The State Government, on the decision of the Governor in exercise of discretionary powers conferred upon him under Relaxation Rules' 1992, had issued orders to approve the recommendations. One such order with regard to 24 Seasonal Collection Amins in district Mirzapur has been brought before the Court to demonstrate that relaxation was granted under rule 3 of Relaxation Rules' 1992. The submission is that the State has to act fairly in all such matters with respect to the similarly situated persons who are petitioners in the present bunch. Being a welfare State, it cannot be allowed to deviate from the procedure adopted by it. The petitioners cannot be discriminated on the ground that the Government order dated 30.05.2008 has been recinded as it runs contrary to the statutory provision and no such power exist as of now. Submission is that the revocation of the Government order dated 30.05.2008 vide Government order 30.10.2017 is of no consequence as far as the powers under Relaxation Rules' 1992 are concerned. Further, Rule 3 of said rules starts with an Non- obstante clause which gives an overriding effect to the said rule. The power conferred upon the Governor to grant relaxation is special and exceptional and the Relaxation Rules 1992 cannot be termed as general rules. They are the specific rules conferring special power upon the Governor to grant relaxation in the maximum age criteria; even if there is anything contrary provided in any rule regulating the maximum age requirement."

8. The Coordinate Bench of this Court accordingly was of the opinion that relaxation Rule 1992 would be attracted to both the sources of recruitment provided under rule 5 of Rules 1974 (as amended by Fifth Amendment Rules' 1992) i.e. (i) open selection; and (ii) by selection of Seasonal Collection Amins to the regular post of Collection Amin against the prescribed quota and also of the view that terming the Relaxation Rules' 1992 a general rule, would be a misconception. A careful reading of the said rule shows that it confers special and exclusive power upon the Governor to grant relaxation in the age criteria provided under any of the rules, relating to a post or service framed by it under this rules making power under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution and disposed of the writ petition after passing following directions:- "Resultantly, all the writ petitions are being disposed of by directing the competent authority under Rule 3 of Rules' 1992 to consider:-

1. Whether there should be relaxation in the matter of maximum age, in the context of Rules' 1992, for such candidates who fall within the zone of consideration on account of increase in quota to 85% (for Seasonal Collection Amin) and 100% (for Seasonal Collection Peon), by amendment of the relevant rules, as a one time measure; but have been excluded on account of being overage though they fulfill all other eligibility requirements of the Rules, for regular appointment.

2. Similarly, a simultaneous decision shall also be taken, in the context of Rules' 1992, with regard to petitioners and other similarly situated employees, whose candidature for regular appointment has been considered under the existing quota of 35% and 50% under the second proviso, but they have been denied regular appointment on being overage and their claims have been rejected by the State-respondents on the ground that there is no provision for grant of age relaxation under the recruitment rules.

3. For the purpose, the State-respondent would be requiring to place all relevant material before the Governor so that all attending circumstances are brought to his notice so as to form an opinion as to whether relaxation is to be granted or not; and the manner in which the said power is to be exercised. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed expeditiously, preferably, within a period of two months from the date of presentation of this order before the competent authority."

9. Accordingly, the entire factual controversy has been settled and the matter has to be duly considered by the State Government with regard to the age relaxation.

10. In the present case also there is no dispute that only reason for denial of relaxation of the services of the father petitioner is the fact that he had crossed 45 of age and this aspect of the matter was considered only at the level of the District Magistrate, Amethi and never traveled upto the State Government as per the judgment of this Court in the case of Devki Nandan (Supra).

11. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court finds that the claim of the father of the petitioner has not been duly considered in accordance with law and denial of regularisation by a District Magistrate is illegal and arbitrary and contrary to the aforesaid judgment and the same is accordingly set aside.

12. In light of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The matter is remitted to the District Magistrate, Amethi / respondent No. 2 to forward all the papers of the father of the petitioner to the State Government who shall consider and decide the same in light of the directions issued by this Court in the case of Devki Nandan (Supra).

13. In case the State Government considers that father of the petitioner deserves to be regularised then the case for compassionate appointment of the petitioner shall be decided with expedition by respondent No. 2. Order Date :- 7.3.2025 Ravi/ (Alok Mathur, J.) RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench