Smt. Padmawati Singh vs Others

Vedant Srivastava Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J. Order on Delay Condonation Application

1. Heard.

2. Cause shown in affidavit filed in support of the delay condoantion application is sufficient.

3. The application is allowed. Delay condoned. Office is directed to allot regular number to this appeal. Order on Appeal

4. Heard.

5. This is an appeal challenging the judgement and order dated 4.9.2025 passed in Writ-A No. 7585 of 2003 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the Government Order dated 29.1.2023 and seeking compassionate appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules,

1974. 2 SPLAD No. 404 of 2025

6. The husband of the petitioner was a daily wage employee who was engaged in the Public Works Department in 1987. He died while working as such in 2003. Prior to his death, his services were not regularized. It is not the case of the appellant that the services of any person junior to him have been regularized prior to his death. No such Rule has been placed before us, under which the deceased was entitled to be considered for regularization and in spite of available substantive vacancies and fulfillment of all other conditions, he was not considered.

7. The fact of the matter is that without his services being regularized, he died. In the year 2003 itself, the above-mentioned writ petition was filed by the petitioner-wife, which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge relying upon a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Pavan Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. 2011 (1) ALL LJ 1.

8. We have also perused the said judgement. In view of the law enunciated therein, we do not find any error in the judgement of the learned Single Judge.

9. At this stage, the counsel for the appellant relied upon another judgement rendered in another petition bearing Writ-A No. 1860 of 2025 (Archana Verma U.P. State Information Commission and others), wherein in somewhat similar circumstances as claimed, the learned Single Judge opined that the husband of the said petitioner was liable to be considered as a regular employee of U.P. State Information Commission and all the benefits accrued to him should be granted on his death to the members of the family.

10. In this context, the learned Single Judge relied upon two judgements 3 SPLAD No. 404 of 2025 of the Supreme Court, one rendered in the case of Jaggo Vs. Union of India and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 and the other rendered in the case of Shripal and another Vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221. Accordingly, the order impugned before it was set aside and the respondents were directed to consider the case of the said petitioner for appointment treating the services of the husband of the petitioner as if he was in regular appointment of U.P. State Information Commission.

11. With respect, we find that there is no reference in the said judgement to any Rule which may have been applicable in the said case for the purpose of compassionate appointment. If as stated by the appellant’s counsel herein, the same Rules as are applicable in this case i.e., Rules of 1974, were applicable, then, we do not find any provision contained therein having been considered nor is there any consideration of the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Pavan Kumar Yadav (supra) pertaining to the Rules, 1974, which was binding upon the learned Single Judge. As regards reference to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo (supra), it was a case pertaining to regularization and not compassionate appointment. Further, in the said case, the plea of discrimination had also been taken where others having lesser duration of service and educational qualification had been accorded preferential treatment by regularizing their services which is not the case at hand nor was this the case in Archana Verma (supra). The observations made by the Supreme Court in the said case have to be read in that context and not out of context. In the case at hand, there are Rules governing compassionate appointment which have been considered and interpreted by a Full Bench in Pavan Kumar Yadav (supra), moreover the husband 4 SPLAD No. 404 of 2025 of the petitioner never claimed regular status or regularization while alive. Similarly, the other judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Shripal and another (supra) was a matter arising out of 2 conflicting awards of the Labour Court involving termination of service and regularization and not pertaining to compassionate appointment. When there are Rules governing compassionate appointment, as in this case the Rules of 1974, then the least that was required by the writ Court in Archana Verma (supra) was to consider the relevant Rules and whether the petitioner therein was entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment under provisions of the said Rules or not, which was not done. Most important, the Rules of 1974 were considered by the Full Bench of this Court in Pavan Kumar Yadav (supra), which has also not been taken into consideration. Although the decision of the learned Single Judge in Archana Verma (supra) is not directly under challenge in this appeal, but since reliance has been placed by the appellant’s counsel herein, we cannot help say that the said judgement has been rendered per incuriam and sub silentio i.e., without taking into consideration the relevant Rules of 1974 and the Full Bench decision in Pavan Kumar Yadav (supra). The Supreme Court decisions relied were not directly on the issue of compassionate appointment whether under the Rules, 1974 or otherwise. The observations made therein could not have been imported and applied out of context in a case of compassionate appointment. We say no more for the reason, as said judgement is not specifically under challenge before us.

12. In view of the above discussion, we see no reason to interfere with the judgement of the learned Single Judge. 5 SPLAD No. 404 of 2025

13. The petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. October 15, 2025 Shravan (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vedant Srivastava Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J. Order on Delay Condonation Application

1. Heard.

2. Cause shown in affidavit filed in support of the delay condoantion application is sufficient.

3. The application is allowed. Delay condoned. Office is directed to allot regular number to this appeal. Order on Appeal

4. Heard.

5. This is an appeal challenging the judgement and order dated 4.9.2025 passed in Writ-A No. 7585 of 2003 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant challenging the Government Order dated 29.1.2023 and seeking compassionate appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules,

1974. 2 SPLAD No. 404 of 2025

6. The husband of the petitioner was a daily wage employee who was engaged in the Public Works Department in 1987. He died while working as such in 2003. Prior to his death, his services were not regularized. It is not the case of the appellant that the services of any person junior to him have been regularized prior to his death. No such Rule has been placed before us, under which the deceased was entitled to be considered for regularization and in spite of available substantive vacancies and fulfillment of all other conditions, he was not considered.

7. The fact of the matter is that without his services being regularized, he died. In the year 2003 itself, the above-mentioned writ petition was filed by the petitioner-wife, which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge relying upon a Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Pavan Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. 2011 (1) ALL LJ 1.

8. We have also perused the said judgement. In view of the law enunciated therein, we do not find any error in the judgement of the learned Single Judge.

9. At this stage, the counsel for the appellant relied upon another judgement rendered in another petition bearing Writ-A No. 1860 of 2025 (Archana Verma U.P. State Information Commission and others), wherein in somewhat similar circumstances as claimed, the learned Single Judge opined that the husband of the said petitioner was liable to be considered as a regular employee of U.P. State Information Commission and all the benefits accrued to him should be granted on his death to the members of the family.

10. In this context, the learned Single Judge relied upon two judgements 3 SPLAD No. 404 of 2025 of the Supreme Court, one rendered in the case of Jaggo Vs. Union of India and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 and the other rendered in the case of Shripal and another Vs. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221. Accordingly, the order impugned before it was set aside and the respondents were directed to consider the case of the said petitioner for appointment treating the services of the husband of the petitioner as if he was in regular appointment of U.P. State Information Commission.

11. With respect, we find that there is no reference in the said judgement to any Rule which may have been applicable in the said case for the purpose of compassionate appointment. If as stated by the appellant’s counsel herein, the same Rules as are applicable in this case i.e., Rules of 1974, were applicable, then, we do not find any provision contained therein having been considered nor is there any consideration of the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Pavan Kumar Yadav (supra) pertaining to the Rules, 1974, which was binding upon the learned Single Judge. As regards reference to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Jaggo (supra), it was a case pertaining to regularization and not compassionate appointment. Further, in the said case, the plea of discrimination had also been taken where others having lesser duration of service and educational qualification had been accorded preferential treatment by regularizing their services which is not the case at hand nor was this the case in Archana Verma (supra). The observations made by the Supreme Court in the said case have to be read in that context and not out of context. In the case at hand, there are Rules governing compassionate appointment which have been considered and interpreted by a Full Bench in Pavan Kumar Yadav (supra), moreover the husband 4 SPLAD No. 404 of 2025 of the petitioner never claimed regular status or regularization while alive. Similarly, the other judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Shripal and another (supra) was a matter arising out of 2 conflicting awards of the Labour Court involving termination of service and regularization and not pertaining to compassionate appointment. When there are Rules governing compassionate appointment, as in this case the Rules of 1974, then the least that was required by the writ Court in Archana Verma (supra) was to consider the relevant Rules and whether the petitioner therein was entitled to be considered for compassionate appointment under provisions of the said Rules or not, which was not done. Most important, the Rules of 1974 were considered by the Full Bench of this Court in Pavan Kumar Yadav (supra), which has also not been taken into consideration. Although the decision of the learned Single Judge in Archana Verma (supra) is not directly under challenge in this appeal, but since reliance has been placed by the appellant’s counsel herein, we cannot help say that the said judgement has been rendered per incuriam and sub silentio i.e., without taking into consideration the relevant Rules of 1974 and the Full Bench decision in Pavan Kumar Yadav (supra). The Supreme Court decisions relied were not directly on the issue of compassionate appointment whether under the Rules, 1974 or otherwise. The observations made therein could not have been imported and applied out of context in a case of compassionate appointment. We say no more for the reason, as said judgement is not specifically under challenge before us.

12. In view of the above discussion, we see no reason to interfere with the judgement of the learned Single Judge. 5 SPLAD No. 404 of 2025

13. The petition lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed. October 15, 2025 Shravan (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench