Rachna Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Basic Edu. Lko and 3 Others

"Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to comply with and implement the judgment and order dated 03.09.2024 (Annexure No. 1) passed by this Hon'ble Court in WritA No. 24001 of 2021 and to consider and grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner on a suitable post within a stipulated time."

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that request for compassionate appointment was made before the competent authority, but the same was not being considered, then the petitioner preferred Writ-A No. 24001 of 2021, which was allowed by judgment and order dated 03.09.2024, by setting aside the earlier decision of the competent authority dated 21.08.2021, and directed respondent no.3, District Basic Education Officer, Hardoi, to reconsider the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment dated 30.04.2016 or Class-IV post in terms of her consent dated 02.08.2019, within a period of six weeks from the date of production of certified copy of the order. He also submits that as the petitioner was ill, she could not pursue her case, hence, indulgence of this Court is required.

¶13

Learned counsel for the respondent, while opposing the prayer of the

¶14

WRIA No. 4741 of 2026

¶15

2

¶16

petitioner, submits that statutory remedy of contempt is available to the petitioner to ensure compliance of order passed by the Writ Court.

¶17

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and going through the contents of the petition as well as other relevant material, it is evident that by means of judgment and order dated 03.09.2024, Writ-A No. 24001 of 2021 was allowed.

¶18

5.1. The order dated 03.09.2024 passed in Writ-A No. 24001 of 2021 is as under:

¶19

"1. Heard Mr. Anuj Dayal, learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite party no. 1, Mr. Ran Vijay Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 2 and Mr. Prashant Kumar Singh, learned counsel for opposite party no. 3. No one has appeared on behalf of opposite party no. 4.

¶20

2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 21.08.20221 whereby petitioner's application for compassionate appointment in lieu of services rendered by her mother Smt. Omwati Devi who passed away in service on 31.01.2013, has been rejected.

¶21

3. It has been submitted that petitioner's application has been rejected on the twin ground that firstly she is married daughter and therefore does not come within purview of 'family' in terms of Rule 2 of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. Secondly that although petitioner had made her application for compassionate appointment within a period of five years but her consent was sought for appointment on a Class-IV post, with such consent being given by petitioner after six years and seven months from the date of demise of her mother due to which her application has been deemed to be time barred.

¶22

4. It is submitted that the aforesaid grounds are untenable in view of the judgment rendered by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vimla Srivastava versus State of U.P. and others reported in 2015 SCC OnLine All 6776. It is further submitted that once the opposite parties have admitted that application for compassionate appointment was given within a period of five years, the date of providing consent for appointment on a Class-IV post is irrelevant.

¶23

WRIA No. 4741 of 2026

¶24

3

¶25

5. Learned counsel for opposite parties have refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that although an unmarried daughter also is now covered within definition of family as per Rule 2 (c) (iii) of the Rules of 1974 but since the consent was not accorded by petitioner within the specified time frame, the application was rightly considered to be beyond limitation although the same was thereafter required to be forwarded to the State Government for condonation of delay as per prescribed under the Rules of 1974.

¶26

6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is admitted that petitioner's mother passed away in service on 31.01.2013 whereafter petitioner submitted her application for compassionate appointment on 30.04.2016 and vide letters dated 05.05.2017 and 27.07.2017, petitioner's consent was required by the opposite parties for appointment on a Class-IV post. Such consent was thereafter given by petitioner after a period of six years and seven months from the date of demise of her mother.

¶27

7. The impugned order also adverts to the fact that their dispute was thereafter referred to the U.P. Basic Education Board, Prayagraj for necessary directions which were provided vide letter dated 17.08.2021 whereafter the impugned order has been passed on that basis.

¶28

8. It is also evident that petitioner's application has been rejected primarily on the twin grounds of her being married and therefore not coming within definition of family as per Rules of 1974 and her application being considered as time barred.

¶29

9. So far as the first ground is concerned, it is evident that the aspect of married daughters not coming within definition of family in Rule 2 (c) (iii) of the Rules of 1974 has already been held to be illegal, unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India by Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Vimla Srivastava (supra). It is also relevant that thereafter in terms of the aforesaid judgment, the State Government having accepted the directions of this Court, amended the Rules of 1974 in 2021 whereafter a married daughter has also been included in the definition of 'family' from the date of amendment.

¶30

10. In view of the fact that the provision excluding married daughters from the definition of family in the Rules of 1974 has been held to be

¶31

WRIA No. 4741 of 2026

¶32

4

¶33

unconstitutional, it would definitely have a cascading and retrospective effect due to such petitioner's application would be deemed to be covered by the judgment of this Court and therefore rejection of petitioner's application on the ground of her being a married daughter is untenable. This is more so because the said judgment was rendered while petitioner's application was pending.

¶34

11. So far as second ground is concerned, it is apparent that petitioner's mother passed away on 31.01.2013 whereafter admittedly she gave an application for compassionate appointment on 30.04.2016.

¶35

12. Rule 5 (iii) of the Rules of 1974 specifically provides that an application for employment on compassionate basis is required to be made within five years from the date of death of the Government servant. In the present case, it is apparent that application for compassionate appointment has been made within the prescribed period of five years. There is no provision under the rules or any other order whereby the date of consent for appointment can be treated to be the date of application for compassionate appointment.

¶36

13. In view of aforesaid, the date of application for seeking compassionate appointment in terms of Rule 5 (iii) of the Rules of 1974 will definitely have to be taken as 30.04.2016 and not 02.08.2019.

¶37

14. In view thereof, the opposite parties are clearly in error in treating petitioner's application for compassionate appointment to be time barred.

¶38

15. Considering aforesaid discussion, the impugned order dated 21.08.2021 is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari. A further writ in the nature of mandamus is issued commanding the opposite party no. 3 i.e. Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Hardoi to reconsider the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment dated 30.04.2016 or any Class-IV post in terms of her consent dated 02.08.2019 within a period of six weeks' from the date a certified copy of this order is served upon the said authority in case petitioner is otherwise eligible for same.

¶39

16. Accordingly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own cost."

¶40

It seems that decision has not been taken by the competent authority.

¶41

WRIA No. 4741 of 2026

¶42

5

¶43

Therefore, the present petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to move fresh representation before the competent authority within a period of ten days from today. In case any representation is moved along with the certified copy of this order as well as order dated 03.09.2024 passed in Writ-A No. 24001 of 2021, the same shall be considered and decided by a reasoned and speaking order by the competent authority within a period of three weeks thereafter, and the said decision be also communicated to the petitioner.

¶44

(Rajeev Singh,J.)

¶45

May 25, 2026 Arpan

¶46

Digitally signed by :- ARPAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rachna Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Basic Edu. Lko and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rachna Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Basic Edu. Lko and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ramswaroop Goswami vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Urban Development Deptt. U.P. Lko. and 3 Others

Smt. Sabiha Parveen vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Minority Welfare and Waqf, Lko. and 5 Others

Amit Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. U.P. and Another

Shivkaran Singh vs Union of India Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Telecommunications, Ministry of Communication, and 2 Others

Manish Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Social Welfare Lko. and 7 Others

Tahzeeb Aalam vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Housing and Urban Planning Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others