Dismissed¶30

Himanshu Tiwari v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC8 May 2025WRIA/6264/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Compassionate appointment; U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974; Rule 5; Rule 2(c) definition of 'family'; nephew of deceased employee not eligible; nomination in service book confers custodian status only and does not alter inheritance; will deed; adoption not pleaded or proved; neutral citation 2025:AHC:81747; High Court of Judicature at Allahabad; Ajay Bhanot, J.; writ petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Nomination of a family member in a service record is for the limited purpose of receiving the benefits of the deceased-employee as a custodian and does not change the rules of inheritance. ¶10

Himanshu Tiwari vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶30

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, nephew of the deceased government servant, nominated in the deceased's service book, is entitled to appointment on compassionate ground under the Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974.

¶9

Court's answer

Nomination of a family member in a service record is for the limited purpose of receiving the benefits of the deceased-employee as a custodian and does not change the rules of inheritance.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

Compassionate ground appointments are not a vested right, must be made in strict adherence to the Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974, and only dependant family members are eligible thereunder.

¶12

Key takeaways

A nephew does not fall within the ambit of 'family' as defined in the Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 read with Rule 5 thereof, and hence is not entitled to appointment under Rule 5.ratio¶28
The petitioner neither asserted adoption by the deceased-employee nor produced any lawful adoption deed; placing reliance only on a will deed and nomination, he is not eligible for appointment on compassionate ground.ratio¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Ajay Bhanot, J.; WRIT - A No. 6264 of 2025, decided 16.5.2025) dismissed a writ petition by Himanshu Tiwari, nephew of a deceased government servant, who sought appointment on compassionate ground on the basis of his nomination in the deceased's service book and a will deed. Held: (i) nomination of a family member in a service record is only for receiving the deceased-employee's benefits as custodian and does not change the rules of inheritance; (ii) appointments under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 are not a vested right, must strictly adhere to the Rules, and are confined to dependant family members; (iii) under Rule 2(c) 'family' means only wife/husband, sons, and unmarried/widowed daughters, so a nephew is ineligible under Rule 5; (iv) the petitioner neither pleaded adoption nor produced an adoption deed, relying only on a will deed and nomination. Writ petition dismissed.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:81747

¶2

Court No. - 5

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 6264 of 2025

¶4

Petitioner :- Himanshu Tiwari Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Ashwani Kumar Mishra,Nitya Nand Mishra,Vipin Kumar Singh

¶6

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Nagendra Nath Mishra

¶7

Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot,J.

¶8

Heard Shri Nitya Nand Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri P.K. Shahi, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondent No.1-State and Shri Mohit Verma, learned counsel holding brief of Shri Nagendra Nath Mishra, learned counsel for the respondents No.2 and 3.

¶9

The petitioner is the nephew of the deceased-employee. The petitioner claimed that he is entitled to appointment on compassionate ground since he had been nominated by his deceased uncle in his service book.

¶10

The nomination of a family member in a service record is for the limited purpose of receiving the benefits of the deceased-employee as a custodian. Such nomination does not change the rules of inheritance.

¶11

The appointment on compassionate ground is made under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "Dying-in-Harness Rules,

¶12

1974"). The compassionate ground appointments are not a vested right to an exception to the normal mode of recruitment. The appointment on compassionate grounds have to be made in the strict adherence to the Dying-inHarness Rules, 1974. The persons who are dependant family member alone are eligible for appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974. Rule 5 of the Dying-inHarness Rules, 1974 is extracted hereunder:

¶13

“ Rule 5. Recruitment of a member of the family of the deceased . -

¶14

(1) In case a Government servant dies in harness after the commencement of these rules and the spouse of the deceased Government servant is not already employed under the Central Government or a State Government or a Corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government or a State Government, one member of his family who is not already employed under the Central Government or a State Government or a Corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government or a State Government shall, on making an application for the purposes, be given a suitable employment in Government service on a post except the post which is within the purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, in relaxation of the normal recruitment rules, if such person-

¶15

(i) fulfils the educational qualifications prescribed for the post,

¶16

(ii) is otherwise qualified for Government service, and

¶17

(iii) makes the application for employment within five years from the date of the death of the Government servant:

¶18

Provided that where the State Government is satisfied that the time limit fixed for making the application for employment causes undue hardship in any particular case, it may dispense with or relax the requirement as it may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and

¶19

equitable manner.

¶20

(2) As far as possible, such an employment should be given in the same department in which the deceased Government servant was employed prior to his death.

¶21

(3) Every appointment made under sub-rule (1) shall be subject to the condition that the person appointed under sub-rule (1) shall maintain other members of the family of deceased Government servant, who were dependent on the deceased Government servant immediately before his death and are unable to maintain themselves.

¶22

(4) When the person appointed under sub-rule (1) neglects or refuses to maintain a person to whom he is liable to maintain under sub-rule (3), his service may be terminated in accordance with the Uttar Pradesh Government Servant (Discipline and Appeal) Rules, 1999, as amended from time to time."

¶23

The definition of family is also provided in Rule 2 (c) of Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974, which is reproduced hereunder for ease of reference:

¶24

“2(c)- "family" shall include the following relations of the deceased Government servant:

¶25

(i) Wife or husband;

¶26

(ii) Sons;

¶27

(iii) Unmarried and widowed daughters;”

¶28

Admittedly, the petitioner being a nephew does not fall within the ambit of word 'family' as defined in Dying-inHarness Rules, 1974 read with Rule 5 of the said Rules and hence is not entitled of such appointment under Rule 5 of the Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974.

¶29

The petitioner has not asserted that he was adopted by the deceased-employee nor has he brought any lawful adoption deed in the record. The petitioner has only placed reliance on a will deed and nomination to support his claim. The petitioner is not eligible for appointment on compassionate ground.

¶30

In this wake, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

¶31

Order Date :- 16.5.2025 Ashish Tripathi

¶32

Digitally signed by :- ASHISH NAYAN TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Himanshu Tiwari v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Himanshu Tiwari v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Umesh Singh vs Food Corporation of India and 5 Others

Kamlesh Yadav vs Food Corporation of India Divisional Office and 5 Others

Rajeev Kumar Yadav and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Vimla Pati Alias Vimlapati vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Usha Nath vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Jay Bajpai Alias Jay Kant Bajpai vs State of U.P.