Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:142774 Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 57209 of 2010 Petitioner :- Shashi Kant Dwivedi Respondent :- State of U.P. and Others Counsel for Petitioner :- J. P. N. Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C. S. C. Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. 1. Heard Shri J.P.N. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri Rahul Malviya, learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent. 2. By means of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner has prayed for quashing the impugned order dated 05.07.2010 passed by respondent no. 2 i.e. District Magistrate, Ballia, whereby his claim for compassionate appointment has come to be rejected inter alia on ground that on 30.09.2009 petitioner's father had been removed from the post of seasonal collection Amin and thereafter he died on 08.12.2010 and hence on the date of death, he was not in employment to hold that he died in harness and hence his dependent was not entitled for compassionate appointment. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner's father though discharged duties with artificial brakes in between the period of 1980-1981 but ever since 1981 till 08.12.2009. Thus he did continue until suspended in September, 2009. It is contended that petitioner's father had suddenly fallen ill in September, 2009 so he could not challenge his removal order whereas similarly placed other employees had challenged and obtained interim protection. In support of his submission so advanced, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the certificate issued by medical practitioner on 17.08.2010 stating that the patient namely Late Kashi Nath Dwivedi was under his treatment w.e.f. 14.11.2009. Thus according to learned counsel the certificate discloses illness. He has also relied upon another prescription paper of consulting physician Dr. R.N. Singh, according to which petitioner suffered from Hepatitis C and went under his treatment from 15.09.2009 to 12.11.2009. It is thus argued on behalf of petitioner that petitioner's claim ought not to have been rejected on the ground that petitioner's father did not die in harness. 4. On the contrary it is argued by Shri Rahul Malviya, learned Standing Counsel that going by the compassionate appointment rules an employee, may be a sole bread earner of the family, must be wrongly as pay on the date when he met his sad demise. It is argued that admittedly on the date when the petitioner's father died he was not in service as he had stood removed and this fact has not been denied in the writ petition. Hence according Mr. Rahul Malviya even if otherwise petitioner's father service there were artificial brakes, petitioner's claim could not have been considered for compassionate appointment as his father died after his removal from employment. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the material available on record, I find this to be an admitted fact position emerging out for the pleadings raised by respective parties that petitioner's father Late Kashi Nath Dwivedi had been removed in the month of September, 2009 from the respondent establishment while working as seasonal collection Amin and that he never challenged the said order to get reinstatement. Under the circumstances it is clear that petitioner's father while died on 08.12.2009 he was not in employment and hence he will not fall within the definition of employee under the U.P. Government Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974. Hence, I do not find there be any manifest error in the order passed by the authorities. The petition is held to be devoid on merits and is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 20.8.2025 Sharad/- WRIA No. 57209 of 2010 2 Digitally signed by :- SHARAD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad