Compassionate Appointment Cannot Be Denied For Daughter Of Deceased Govt. Servant Merely Because His Son Has Government Job: Allahabad HC
The Allahabad High Court held that a compassionate appointment cannot be denied to a daughter of a deceased Government servant merely because his son is in a government job.
The petitioner’s father, who had passed away, was working as a Head Master at a Primary School. The petitioner claimed that she was permanently disabled to the tune of 75%, was unmarried, and that she was completely dependent on the earnings of her father.
The District Basic Education Officer had rejected the petitioner’s application for her compassionate appointment.
A Single Bench of Justice Manjive Shukla observed, “The legislature while amending Rule 5(1) of the Rules of 1974 was conscious of the fact that if one son of the deceased government servant is in government job, his earnings may not be available for survival of the remaining family members of the deceased government servant for the reason that the earnings of the son are meant for survival of his own family (his wife and children).”
Advocate Amit Kumar Singh represented the applicant, while C.S.C. Ashish Kumar (Nagvanshi) appeared for the opposite parties.
The High Court noted that the District Basic Education Officer had rejected the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment on two grounds.
Firstly, the petitioner’s brother had a government job which disentitled her from compassionate appointment under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (Rules of 1974). Secondly, since the petitioner’s brother was unmarried as well, his earnings were sufficient for the sustenance of the surviving family and the petitioner.
The Court explained that Rule 5(1) of the Rules of 1974 was amended and the amended Rule 5(1) provided that if the surviving spouse of a deceased government servant had a government job then the other family members dependent on the deceased government would not be entitled to compassionate appointment.
The Court stated that the legislative intent of the amendment only had one prohibition if the surviving spouse of a deceased government servant had a government job, only then the other dependent family members would not be entitled to compassionate appointment.
The Court held that “there cannot be any occasion for the District Basic Education Officer, Gorkhpur to reject petitioner’s case for compassionate appointment on the ground that her brother is in government job.”
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition.
Cause Title: Kumari Nisha v. State Of U.P. & Ors. (2024:AHC:23294)
Appearance:
Applicant: Advocate Amit Kumar Singh
Opposite Party: C.S.C. Ashish Kumar (Nagvanshi)
