Rekha Devi v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy

1. Heard Mr. Apurva Pal, Advocate, holding brief on behalf of Mr. Ajit Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties.

2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 23rd March 2023 rejecting terms of U.P. petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. Further prayer for consideration of petitioner's candidature for compassionate appointment on a suitable class IV post in terms of aforesaid rules has also been sought.

3. It has been submitted that earlier petitioner's father, late Awadh Narayan who was in the service of opposite parties passed away in harness on 25th May 2003. At that time petitioner was married and since did not come within purview of 'family' in terms of Rule 2 of the Rules 1974, she did not apply for same but upon having been granted a divorce in the year 2010 and facing financial difficulties, she submitted the application for compassionate appointment in the 12th October, 2010. The said application was thereafter rejected by means of orders dated 8th December 2017, 25th May 2018, 27th March 2018, and 11th October 2019, which were challenged in Writ A No. 34533 of 2019. The same was allowed vide judgment and order dated 3rd January 2023 primarily on the ground that since the application was beyond stipulated time under Rule 5 of Rules 1974, it was only the State Government which could grant the relaxation. The matter was thereafter referred to State Government for considering such relaxation. It is in 2 WRIA No. 5587 of 2023 pursuance thereof that the impugned order has been passed.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner has adverted to the impugned order to submit that the aspect of relaxation has been rejected in a cursory manner without adverting to the aspects which were required to be considered in terms of judgment rendered by this Court on 3rd January 2023. It is also submitted that the concerned authority has not considered the aspect of undue hardship which is being faced by petitioner. Learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Seema Gupta versus State of U.P., Writ A No. 9842 of 2022 as well as in the case of Behram Khurshed Pesikaka versus State of Bombay, AIR 1955 Supreme Court 123.

5. Learned State Counsel on the basis of the counter affidavit has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that year of death of deceased being 2003, the application preferred by petitioner was highly belated and the impugned order has rightly considered this aspect as well as the fact that at the time of demise of petitioner's father, petitioner was disentitled to claim any such benefit since she did not come within purview of definition of 'family' under Rule 2 of the Rules 1974 with such inclusion being directed only in the year 2021, which will not have any retrospective operation. It is also submitted that the purpose of providing compassionate appointment is for immediate succor to the family, which is left destitute and in view of sudden financial hardship being faced by the family. It is therefore submitted that since there was no immediate financial destitution faced by the petitioner, her application has been rightly rejected. Learned counsel has placed reliance on judgment rendered in Special Appeal No. 356 of 2012, Shiv Kumar Dubey versus State of U.P. and others, Special Appeal No. 371 of 2012, Ashok Kumar versus State of U.P. and others and Special Appeal no. 379 of 2012, Govind Singh versus State of U.P. and others.

6. After consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that earlier this court by means of judgment and order dated 3rd January, 2023 passed in Writ A No. 34533 of 2019 has considered the aspect that by virtue of judgment rendered by Division Bench of this court in the case of Smt.Vimla Srivastava versus State of U.P. and another, Writ C No. 6088 of 2015, it has already been held that widowed, unmarried or divorced daughters have been 3 WRIA No. 5587 of 2023 included in terms of 'family' as defined under Rule 2 of the Rules 1974 and therefore petitioner would have a right in view thereof. Liberty had been granted to the state government to consider the aspect of relaxation.

7. From perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the aspect of relaxation to be granted to the petitioner has been rejected primarily on the ground that all the service and post-retiral benefits have already been paid and the family is also in receipt of family pension due to which there is no financial destitution being faced by the family.

8. However it is also evident that while only a cursory observation has been made with regard to aforesaid benefits already being granted to the family of deceased, there is no actual indication of the amounts which were received by the family nor of the expenses which would be required to be incurred for purposes of consideration of undue hardship being faced by the family.

9. In the considered opinion of this court, the aspect of petitioner coming within zone of consideration as a family under Rule 2 of the Rules 1974 has already been adjudicated upon in the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Vimla Srivastava (supra) and petitioner has also been held to be entitled in pursuance thereof in the judgment dated 3rd January, 2023 rendered in the earlier writ petition preferred by petitioner.

10. Once the Division Bench has already held that widowed, unmarried or divorced daughters would be included under Rule 2 of the Rules of 1974, with such observation being made that it is against constitutional principles, the judgment would have retrospective operation and would be applicable upon the petitioner as well. Even otherwise such judgments based on constitutional principles do have retrospective applicability

10. The only aspect of relaxation is therefore required to be considered.

11. As observed herein above, the aspect of relaxation has been rejected cursorily without adverting to the incomes being received by family and its reasonable expenditure and the aspect of dependence of petitioner on her mother or on any source of income received in pursuance of services rendered by her late father.

12. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances and observations made herein above, the impugned order dated 23rd March, 2023, being virtually non-speaking on that aspect is hereby quashed by issuance of writ in the 4 WRIA No. 5587 of 2023 nature of Certiorari granting liberty to opposite party No. 1 i.e. Additional Chief/Principal Secretary, Revenue, U.P. Civil Secretariat, Lucknow to re- examine aspect of relaxation to petitioner for compassionate appointment. The concerned authority shall specifically advert to the incomes being received by the family of deceased employee and their reasonable expenditure to arrive at a conclusion of the undue hardship being faced by them. Appropriate directions with regard to same shall be passed by the authority concerned expeditiously, within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon the said authority.

13. In case the relaxation is accorded by the opposite party No.1, the aspect of petitioner's consideration for undue hardship and compassionate appointment shall be considered within the same time frame.

14. Resultantly the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. October 31, 2025 prabhat (Manish Mathur,J.) PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Mr. Apurva Pal, Advocate, holding brief on behalf of Mr. Ajit Singh, learned counsel for petitioner and learned State Counsel for opposite parties.

2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 23rd March 2023 rejecting terms of U.P. petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. Further prayer for consideration of petitioner's candidature for compassionate appointment on a suitable class IV post in terms of aforesaid rules has also been sought.

3. It has been submitted that earlier petitioner's father, late Awadh Narayan who was in the service of opposite parties passed away in harness on 25th May 2003. At that time petitioner was married and since did not come within purview of 'family' in terms of Rule 2 of the Rules 1974, she did not apply for same but upon having been granted a divorce in the year 2010 and facing financial difficulties, she submitted the application for compassionate appointment in the 12th October, 2010. The said application was thereafter rejected by means of orders dated 8th December 2017, 25th May 2018, 27th March 2018, and 11th October 2019, which were challenged in Writ A No. 34533 of 2019. The same was allowed vide judgment and order dated 3rd January 2023 primarily on the ground that since the application was beyond stipulated time under Rule 5 of Rules 1974, it was only the State Government which could grant the relaxation. The matter was thereafter referred to State Government for considering such relaxation. It is in 2 WRIA No. 5587 of 2023 pursuance thereof that the impugned order has been passed.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner has adverted to the impugned order to submit that the aspect of relaxation has been rejected in a cursory manner without adverting to the aspects which were required to be considered in terms of judgment rendered by this Court on 3rd January 2023. It is also submitted that the concerned authority has not considered the aspect of undue hardship which is being faced by petitioner. Learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment rendered by this Court in the case of Seema Gupta versus State of U.P., Writ A No. 9842 of 2022 as well as in the case of Behram Khurshed Pesikaka versus State of Bombay, AIR 1955 Supreme Court 123.

5. Learned State Counsel on the basis of the counter affidavit has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that year of death of deceased being 2003, the application preferred by petitioner was highly belated and the impugned order has rightly considered this aspect as well as the fact that at the time of demise of petitioner's father, petitioner was disentitled to claim any such benefit since she did not come within purview of definition of 'family' under Rule 2 of the Rules 1974 with such inclusion being directed only in the year 2021, which will not have any retrospective operation. It is also submitted that the purpose of providing compassionate appointment is for immediate succor to the family, which is left destitute and in view of sudden financial hardship being faced by the family. It is therefore submitted that since there was no immediate financial destitution faced by the petitioner, her application has been rightly rejected. Learned counsel has placed reliance on judgment rendered in Special Appeal No. 356 of 2012, Shiv Kumar Dubey versus State of U.P. and others, Special Appeal No. 371 of 2012, Ashok Kumar versus State of U.P. and others and Special Appeal no. 379 of 2012, Govind Singh versus State of U.P. and others.

6. After consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that earlier this court by means of judgment and order dated 3rd January, 2023 passed in Writ A No. 34533 of 2019 has considered the aspect that by virtue of judgment rendered by Division Bench of this court in the case of Smt.Vimla Srivastava versus State of U.P. and another, Writ C No. 6088 of 2015, it has already been held that widowed, unmarried or divorced daughters have been 3 WRIA No. 5587 of 2023 included in terms of 'family' as defined under Rule 2 of the Rules 1974 and therefore petitioner would have a right in view thereof. Liberty had been granted to the state government to consider the aspect of relaxation.

7. From perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the aspect of relaxation to be granted to the petitioner has been rejected primarily on the ground that all the service and post-retiral benefits have already been paid and the family is also in receipt of family pension due to which there is no financial destitution being faced by the family.

8. However it is also evident that while only a cursory observation has been made with regard to aforesaid benefits already being granted to the family of deceased, there is no actual indication of the amounts which were received by the family nor of the expenses which would be required to be incurred for purposes of consideration of undue hardship being faced by the family.

9. In the considered opinion of this court, the aspect of petitioner coming within zone of consideration as a family under Rule 2 of the Rules 1974 has already been adjudicated upon in the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Vimla Srivastava (supra) and petitioner has also been held to be entitled in pursuance thereof in the judgment dated 3rd January, 2023 rendered in the earlier writ petition preferred by petitioner.

10. Once the Division Bench has already held that widowed, unmarried or divorced daughters would be included under Rule 2 of the Rules of 1974, with such observation being made that it is against constitutional principles, the judgment would have retrospective operation and would be applicable upon the petitioner as well. Even otherwise such judgments based on constitutional principles do have retrospective applicability

10. The only aspect of relaxation is therefore required to be considered.

11. As observed herein above, the aspect of relaxation has been rejected cursorily without adverting to the incomes being received by family and its reasonable expenditure and the aspect of dependence of petitioner on her mother or on any source of income received in pursuance of services rendered by her late father.

12. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances and observations made herein above, the impugned order dated 23rd March, 2023, being virtually non-speaking on that aspect is hereby quashed by issuance of writ in the 4 WRIA No. 5587 of 2023 nature of Certiorari granting liberty to opposite party No. 1 i.e. Additional Chief/Principal Secretary, Revenue, U.P. Civil Secretariat, Lucknow to re- examine aspect of relaxation to petitioner for compassionate appointment. The concerned authority shall specifically advert to the incomes being received by the family of deceased employee and their reasonable expenditure to arrive at a conclusion of the undue hardship being faced by them. Appropriate directions with regard to same shall be passed by the authority concerned expeditiously, within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon the said authority.

13. In case the relaxation is accorded by the opposite party No.1, the aspect of petitioner's consideration for undue hardship and compassionate appointment shall be considered within the same time frame.

14. Resultantly the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. October 31, 2025 prabhat (Manish Mathur,J.) PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench