The Allahabad High Court, in a sensitive matter concerning compassionate appointment, directed the State Government to move beyond a technical and mechanical interpretation of the rules and adopt a humane approach. The Court observed that welfare rules are not meant to leave the family of a deceased employee in distress, but to provide support in difficult circumstances.
While interpreting Rule 10, the Court underlined that,
“Undeniably, Rules providing for compassionate appointment are part of welfare legislation. The object of the Rules is to grant appointment on compassionate consideration to provide assistance to the bereaved family of the deceased employee, who may have been the sole bread winner of his family. For reason of that welfare measure, the validity of such Rules has always been upheld by Courts, though they stand by way of an exception to Article 16 of the Constitution of India.”
The aforesaid order was passed by a Division Bench comprising Justice Soumitra Dayal Singh and Justice Indrajeet Shukla while hearing a Special Appeal filed by Raj Kumari Devi.
According to the facts of the case, Shailendra Kumar Bharti had been working as an Assistant Teacher at Primary School, Jogideel, Ballia for about eight years. He died in a road accident on 07.06.2018 during the course of his service. He was survived by his wife Shashilata and his two-and-a-half-year-old minor daughter, Soumya alias Sakshi. Approximately one month after the incident, his wife also passed away, leaving the minor child completely orphaned. Subsequently, the competent court appointed her uncle and aunt, namely Ramesh Chandra Saxena and Raj Kumari Devi, as her legal guardians.
In her capacity as legal guardian, Raj Kumari Devi applied for compassionate appointment on the basis of being a dependent of the deceased employee. However, the District Basic Education Officer, Ballia, by order dated 13 November 2025, rejected the application on the ground that she did not fall within the definition of “family” under Rule 2(c) of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.
The Single Judge also dismissed the writ petition on the same ground, leading to the filing of the instant Special Appeal. While hearing the appeal, the Court undertook a detailed analysis of the definition of “family” under Rule 2(c) and its proviso.
The Court noted that although the definition includes wife, husband, son, unmarried daughter, widowed daughter-in-law, etc., the proviso itself acknowledges that in special circumstances, the scope of compassionate appointment may be expanded.
The Court further noted that,
“……the legislature has itself contemplated that there may arise a situation where the above described relations of a deceased employee may not be available for grant of compassionate appointment. In that situation the legislative spirit and intent is clear. It is not to deprive such a family the benefit of compassionate appointment but to enlarge the scope of family and to include (in that situation), grand sons and grand daughters of the deceased employee.”
This makes it clear that the legislative intent is to extend the benefit to a destitute family, even if it requires a flexible interpretation of the rules.
Highlighting the authority secured by the State Government under Rule 10, the Court ruled that,
“……it clearly appears to us that besides the welfare measure provided under the specific provisions of the Rules, the State Government has retained to itself the power to further enlarge scope of the proviso to Rule 2 (c) by issuing the special order, upon special facts being disclosed.”
The Court clarified that despite being an exception to the standard recruitment process, compassionate appointment is a valid social welfare measure meant to protect the deceased employee’s family from economic distress.
The Court further observed that,
“……….to remove difficulty is to be governed in the “interest of fair dealing or public interest”, it seriously commends to us that the State Government is not divested of its powers to consider the extreme hardship being cited on behalf of Km. Saumya @ Sakshi, who would be about 9 years of age, today.
Counsel for the appellant submitted that both parents of the minor child had died and no other eligible family member was available. Being the legally appointed guardian, the appellant was caring for the child, and thus, a liberal interpretation of the rules was justified.
On the other hand, the State contended that ‘aunt’ was not included within the definition of “family” under Rule 2(c), and therefore, the authority’s order was in accordance with the rules.
After hearing both the parties, the Court directed the State Government to consider the exceptional facts of the case and pass a “special order” within one week in terms of Rule 10 read with the proviso to Rule 2(c). The decision is to be taken on merits, and any objections such as delay shall not be raised.
The matter has now been listed as fresh for further hearing on 27 February 2026.
Case: Raj Kumari Devi vs State Of Up And 4 Others
Date of Order: 19.02.2026
See the Order: Raj Kumari Devi vs State Of Up And 4 Others
