HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - A No. - 6274 of 2024 Court No. - 7 HON'BLE MANISH MATHUR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties no.1 to 3 and Mr. Siddharth Tripathi,learned counsel for opposite party no.4. 2. Petition has been filed challenging order dated 08.01.2024 rejecting petitioner's application for compassionate appointment due to the fact that his father Late Ram Ajor Yadav passed away in harness on 04.10.2022. 3. It has been submitted that impugned order has been passed only on the ground that opposite party no.4, Dharm Chandra being the elder brother of petitioner also submitted an application for compassionate. It is submitted that thereafter both the applications were required to be decided in terms of the Rule 7 of the Rules of 1974, which have not been adhered to. 4. Learned State counsel on the basis of counter affidavit has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with the submission Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Kunj Bihari Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Ravi Kant Shukla, Siddharth Tripathi Phool Chand .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of P.W.D Lko. And 3 Others .....Respondent(s) that the impugned order clearly indicates the fact that procedure as per Rule 7 of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 was required to be followed and it has been specifically indicated in the order that decision shall be taken keeping in view over all interest. 5. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material available on record, it is evident and admitted that due to demise of late Ram Ajor Yadav in harness, the petitioner as well as opposite party no.4 submitted separate applications for compassionate appointment. 6. Rule 7 of the Rules of 1974 are clearly applicable in such circumstances where more than one claimant files applications for compassionate appointment. 7. Evidently, the said fact has also been recorded in the impugned order but thereafter there is no consideration of any of the factors indicated in Rule 7 of the aforesaid Rules of 1974. The impugned order has merely noticed Rule 7 of the Rules of 1974 without following the same. Rule 7 of the Rules of 1974 are as follows:- "7. Procedure when more than one member of the family seek employment.-If more than one member of the family of the deceased Government servant seek employment under these rules, the Head of Office shall decide about the suitability of the persons for giving employment. The decision will be taken keeping in view also the overall interest of the welfare of the entire family, particularly the widow and the minor members thereof." WRIA No. 6274 of 2024 2 8. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, it being evident that the authority concerned has not followed the provisions and procedure indicated in Rule 7 of the 1974, the impugned order dated 08.01.2024 is hereby quashed by issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari granting liberty to opposite party no.3 i.e. Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Department, Construction Division-2 Ayodhya to decide the applications of petitioner as well as opposite party no.4 in accordance with procedure indicated in Rule 7 of the Rules of 1974. 9. Final decision with regard to same shall be taken within a period of eight weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before said authority. 10. Resultantly, the petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own costs. October 15, 2025 Subodh/- WRIA No. 6274 of 2024 3 (Manish Mathur,J.) Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench Digitally signed by :- SUBODH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench