Married sister sought compassionate appointment after her unmarried assistant-teacher brother died in harness, relying on the Vimla Srivastava ruling on Rule 2(c). The court held she fell under Rule 2(c)(iv), applicable to unmarried deceased employees, and dismissed the petition.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD WRIT - A No. - 14390 of 2025
Amrita Srivastava
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 3 Others
.....Respondent(s)
| Counsel for Petitioner(s) | : Pavan Kumar |
|---|---|
| Counsel for Respondent(s) | : C.S.C., Rajesh Khare |
Court No. - 52
HON'BLE MRS. MANJU RANI CHAUHAN, J.
Heard Mr. Pavan Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Rajesh Khare, learned counsel for respondent no.3 as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State.
The present petition has been filed with the following prayers :-
"(a) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 08.08.2025 passed by the Respondent No. 3 and the respondent No. 3 any be directed to provide a compassionate appointment to the petitioner as such her unmarried brother namely Alakh Rai Srivastava have been died in harness during his service with the post of assistant teacher.
(b) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing to the respondent no. 3 to provide the compassionate appointment to the petitioner as such unmarried brother of the petitioner namely Alakh Rai Srivastava have been died in harness with the post of Assistant Teacher and as such the petitioner is sole eligible candidate in the family."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the real unmarried brother of the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Teacher on 5.12.2020 by the order passed by respondent no.3-B.S.A. He died in harness on 19.11.2022, leaving behind his old aged mother, therefore, the petitioner being married sister of the deceased employee who was the unmarried brother of the petitioner, moved an application on 27.12.2022 before the respondent no.3, requesting for appointment on compassionate ground. When nothing was done, the petitioner filed Writ-A No.1076 of 2025 (Amrita Srivastava vs. State of U.P. and Others) , which was decided by order dated 18.2.2025, directing the respondent no.3 to decide the application so moved by the petitioner in accordance with law.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the order impugned has been passed without considering the paragraph nos.27, 28 and 29 of the judgment passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ - C No. -
WRIA No. 14390 of 2025
2
60881 of 2015 (Smt. Vimla Srivastava vs. State Of U.P. And Another) as decided on 4.12.2015 , which are as follows :-
"27. In conclusion, we hold that the exclusion of married daughters from the ambit of the expression "family" in Rule 2 (c) of the Dying-in-Harness Rules is illegal and unconstitutional, being violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.
28. We, accordingly, strike down the word 'unmarried' in Rule 2 (c) (iii) of the Dyingin-Harness Rules.
29. In consequence, we direct that the claim of the petitioners for compassionate appointment shall be reconsidered. We clarify that the competent authority would be at liberty to consider the claim for compassionate appointment on the basis of all the relevant facts and circumstances and the petitioners shall not be excluded from consideration only on the ground of their marital status."
He further submits that the order impugned has been passed without considering the aforesaid, therefore, the same is arbitrary, illegal and is liable to be set aside.
Learned counsel for the respondent-B.S.A. as well as learned Standing Counsel for the State submit that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order impugned as the petitioner being married sister of the deceased brother who was a government employee, does not come within the ambit of family as per the Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. They further submit that the definition of family is given in Rule 2 (c) of Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 which is as follows :-
"2(c) "family" shall include the following relations of the deceased Government servant:
(i) Wife or husband;
(ii) Sons/adopted sons;
(iii) Unmarried daughters, unmarried adopted daughters, widowed daughters and widowed daughters-in-law;
(iv) Unmarried brothers, unmarried sisters and widowed mother dependent on the deceased Government servant, if the deceased Government servant was unmarried;
(v) aforementioned relations of such missing Government servant who has been declared as "dead" by the competent Court;
Provided that if a person belonging to any of the above mentioned relations of the deceased Government servant is not available or is found to be physically and mentally unfit and thus ineligible for employment in Government service, then only in such situation the word "family" shall also include the grandsons and the unmarried
WRIA No. 14390 of 2025
3
granddaughters of the deceased Government servant dependent on him."
They further contend that as per the judgement passed in the case of Smt. Vimla Srivastava(supra) , the word unmarried has been struck down from Rule 2(c) (iii) of Dying in Harness Rules. The claim of the petitioner was to be considered under Rules 2(c) (iv) of Dying in Harness Rules, wherein in case of unmarried deceased government servant, the unmarried brothers, unmarried sisters and widowed mother who are dependent on the deceased government servant, were to be considered for compassionate appointment, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as prayed.
In view of the aforesaid, the present petition is dismissed , accordingly.
(Mrs. Manju Rani Chauhan,J.)
September 23, 2025 Kalp Nath Singh
Digitally signed by :- KALP NATH SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a married sister is eligible for compassionate appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 when her unmarried brother died in harness.
Whether the impugned order wrongly ignored the Vimla Srivastava judgment striking down 'unmarried' from Rule 2(c)(iii).
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Smt. Vimla Srivastava vs. State of U.P. and AnotherReferred
Writ - C No. - 60881 of 2015 (Smt. Vimla Srivastava vs. State Of U.P. And Another)
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Amrita Srivastava
State Of U.P.
Respondent No. 3 (B.S.A.)
Manju Rani Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
