HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 114 of 2024 Court No. - 1 HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J. HON'BLE RAJEEV BHARTI, J. C.M.A. No.1 of 2024 (Application for Condonation of Delay) 1. Heard. 2. Having gone through the affidavit filed in support of delay condonation application in filing the special appeal, cause shown for the delay in filing the special appeal is sufficient. The application is allowed and the delay in filing the special appeal is condoned. Order on Appeal 3. This is an appeal by the State challenging the judgment and order dated 17.10.2023 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-A No.102 of 2022 allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent-petitioner and quashing the order dated 16.12.2021 by which his claim for compassionate appointment was denied; with a further direction/mandamus to the concerned opposite party to offer appointment to respondent-petitioner as per his eligibility within six weeks. Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : C.S.C. Counsel for Respondent(s) : Rajeev Narayan Pandey, Ajay Pratap Singh, Ram Krishna Pratap Singh, Shubhangi Singh State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. U.P. Govt. Lko. And Others .....Appellant(s) Rohit Saroj .....Respondent(s) 4. Contention of the appellant's counsel before us was that the respondent- petitioner was not dependent on the deceased-Constable who was his unmarried sister. The father of the respondent-petitioner was a retired employee who was receiving pension on the date of the death and submission of application for compassionate appointment. Though it is not denied that out of his six children apart from the deceased-unmarried daughter; two sons were in employment but living separately. Another son who was elder to the respondent-petitioner was residing with the deceased and the respondent-petitioner. The said elder son, i.e. brother of the respondent was not employed on the date of death or submission of application for compassionate appointment, but subsequently is in some private job but he is married. 5. The claim of the respondent-petitioner was denied on the presumption that his father being a pensioner, he would be dependent upon his father rather than his sister. However, it is not in dispute that the father was residing separately and the respondent-petitioner was residing with the deceased –unmarried sister and the elder brother who at the time of death was not employed but had subsequently been engaged in some private job. 6. During course of hearing we have been informed that the father, who was the pensioner, died in 2023. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent, considering the fact that admittedly two of the brothers of the respondent- petitioner, even though they were employed, were residing separately, as also the fact that the father who was pensioner of the Police Department in the State of U.P. was also residing separately and it is only one elder brother, the deceased sister and the respondent-petitioner, who is unemployed, were SPLAD No. 114 of 2024 2 residing together, therefore, purely on the facts of the case, as the deceased sister was an earning member of the family it cannot be said that the respondent-petitioner was not dependent upon her but somebody else as he was residing with her. We also take into consideration the fact that the elder brother is already married and has been engaged in a private job subsequently, therefore, purely on the facts as the respondent-brother falls under the definition of 'Family' for the purposes of compassionate appointment as per the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants (Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974 , we do not find it a fit case for interference with the impugned judgment in intra-court appeal. 8. The special appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. October 8, 2025 Anand/- SPLAD No. 114 of 2024 3 (Rajeev Bharti,J.) (Rajan Roy,J.) Digitally signed by :- ANAND KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench