HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 9368 of 2018 Court No. - 8 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Heard Mr. Shashank Tilhari, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned State counsel for respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed challenging order dated 26.2.2018 whereby petitioner's representation for appointment on Group-C post has been rejected. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that petitioner's father late Raj Kumar Singh died in harness on 20.9.2006 whereafter, in terms of applications made, petitioner was granted compassionate appointment on a class IV post on 12.7.2016. It is submitted that the aforesaid appointment clearly ignored the aspect of petitioner being fully qualified for the purpose of appointment on Group-C post. It is next submitted that in view of financial distress being faced by petitioner's family at that time, he was compelled to join on the offered class IV post but soon thereafter he made representations and applications for appointment to a Group-C post in terms of his qualification. It is submitted that the words 'suitable employment' in Rule 5 of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants (Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules 1974') indicate the fact that it has to be understood with reference to the post held by deceased employee in terms of qualification of dependents. It is also submitted that Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashish Kumar Singh, Anurudh Kumar Singh, Ravi Nath Tilhari, Ravi Singh, Sonu Shukla Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Ashish Singh .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Finance Lucknow And Others .....Respondent(s) since petitioner's father at the time of demise was employed on a Group-C post and petitioner being fully eligible and qualified for appointment on Group-C post, opposite parties have erred in offering him employment on a class IV post. 4. It has further been submitted that opposite parties have lost sight of fact that petitioner was not agitating for a fresh appointment after being appointed on compassionate basis to a Class IV post, but has agitated for appointment to a suitable post, and there would be no question of any estoppel against petitioner. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance upon judgements rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Suneel Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and others (2022) 17 SCC 280, State of U.P. Vs. Premlata (2022) 1 SCC 30, State of H.P. Vs. Shashi Kumar (2019) 3 SCC 653, Prakash Agarwal Vs. High Court of Allahabad (2014) SCC OnLine ALL 15178 and Shiv Kumar Dubey Vs. State of U.P. (2014) SCC OnLine 16214. 6. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, learned State counsel, on the basis of counter affidavit has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission that petitioner does not have any vested right for appointment on compassionate basis on any particular post and that once petitioner has already been appointed on class IV post in the year 2016, which he accepted without any demur, he would be bound by principles of estoppel. It is also submitted that aspect of 'suitable employment' would not give any preference to petitioner with regard to his qualifications and for appointment in terms thereof. 7. Learned State counsel has placed reliance upon judgements rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of State of M.P. Vs. Ramesh Kumar Sharma reported in 1994 Supp.3 SCC 661. 8. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material available on record, the aspect of consideration of Rule 5 of the 'Rules 1974' would be appropriate and are in following terms: WRIA No. 9368 of 2018 2 "[5. Recruitment of a member of the family of the deceased.-(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— (i) fulfils the educational qualifications prescribed for the post, (ii) is otherwise qualified for Government service, and (iii) makes the application for employment within five years from the date of the death of the government servant: 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 equitable manner. (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.]" 9. A perusal of aforesaid rules clearly indicates conditions for employment of dependents of a deceased employee in terms of the factors that he fulfills educational qualifications prescribed for the post, is otherwise qualified for government service and makes an application for employment within five years from the date of death of government servant. The aspect clearly indicated in Rule 5 of the 'Rules 1994' pertains to providing suitable employment in government service. 10. The said aspect of 'suitable employment' has been considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suneel Kumar (supra) in the following manner: "10. At the same time, as far as the question relating to the entitlement as it were of the appellant to be considered to the post of Gram Panchayat WRIA No. 9368 of 2018 3 Officer is concerned, it is without doubt a post borne in Class III. The father of the appellant was working as a Sweeper borne in Class IV post. We have noticed the view taken by this Court in Premlata2. In other words, the law as declared is to the effect that the words "suitable employment" in Rule 5 must be understood with reference to the post held by the deceased employee. The superior qualification held by a dependent cannot determine the scope of the words "suitable employment"." 11. In terms thereof, it is evident that the words 'suitable employment' are required to be understood with reference to the post held by deceased employee. It is, however, also indicated that superior qualification held by a dependent cannot determine the scope of the words 'suitable employment'. Therefore, the said judgement does not indicate any vested right upon a dependent for being employed on the post, which was held by deceased employee. The Supreme Court has clearly indicated that superior qualification held by dependent would not determine the scope of the aforesaid words. 12. The said judgement has thereafter been followed by this Court in the case of Abhishek Mishra Vs. High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and others reported in (2022) SCC OnLine All 643 but it is relevant that none of the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioner indicate any vested right upon a dependent of deceased employee for appointment on a particular post as per their own educational qualifications. 13. This aspect has already been considered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Premlata reported in (2022) 1 SCC 30 in the following manner: ""11. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the Division Bench of the High Court has misinterpreted and misconstrued Rule 5 of the 1974 Rules and in observing and holding that the "suitable post" under Rule 5 of the Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 would mean any post suitable to the qualification of the candidate and the appointment on compassionate ground is to offered considering the educational qualification of the dependent. As observed hereinabove, such an interpretation would defeat the object and purpose of appointment on WRIA No. 9368 of 2018 4 compassionate ground." 14. Upon applicability of aforesaid judgements rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is evident that dependent of deceased employee does not have any vested right to claim appointment on a particular post in terms of his educational qualification. The right vested for such a person is only for consideration of appointment on compassionate basis. The aspect of suitable post also provides only a right to be considered for a post as per qualification of the dependent but does not confer any vested right for such post. Compassionate appointment by its very nature is only to enable the family to tide over immediate financial distress and not as an alternative mode of recruitment. 15. It is also evident from the record that petitioner was provided appointment on a class IV post in 2016, which he accepted without raising any objection at that time. The aspect of principles of estoppel would, therefore, come into play. 16. The said aspect has already been adjudicated upon by Supreme court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Umrao Singh reported in (1994) 6 SCC 560 in the following manner: "8. Admittedly the respondent's father died in harness while working as Sub-Inspector, CID (Special Branch) on 16-3-1988. The respondent filed an a application on 8-4-1988 for his appointment on compassionate ground as Sub-Inspector or LDC according to the availability of vacancy. On a consideration of his plea, he was appointed to the post of LDC by order dated 14-12-1989. He accepted the appointment as LDC. Therefore, the right to be considered for the appointment on compassionate ground was consummated. No further consideration on compassionate ground would bever arise. Otherwise, it would be a case of "endless compassion". Eligibility to be appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police is one thing, the process of selection is yet another thing. Merely because of the so-called eligibility, the learned Single Judge of the High Court was persuaded to the view that direction be issued under proviso to Rule 5 of Rules which has no application to the facts of this case." 17. In view of discussions made hereinabove, this Court finds no ground WRIA No. 9368 of 2018 5 to grant indulgence to petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs. September 2, 2025 AKK WRIA No. 9368 of 2018 6 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- AMIT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench