Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:84697 Court No. - 6 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 7083 of 2025 Petitioner :- Praveen Kumar Verma Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kailash Singh Kushwaha,Rakesh Kumar Verma Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Sanjay Kumar Singh Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Heard Sri Kailash Singh Kushwaha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. In the present case, it is not under much dispute that petitioner’s mother while working as Head Mistress died in harness on 30.3.2023, whereas petitioner’s father a Class IV government employee has attained the age of superannuation on 31.12.2024 i.e. after the death of his wife. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner has applied for compassionate appointment by way of Online application submitted on 13.1.2025 and by way of Offline Application on 16.1.2025. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers the impugned order as shown on ‘View Application Status’ and application was rejected by giving reasons (Comment) in column no.8, which is reproduced hereinafter: 8. Comment उ० प्र० सेवाकाल में मृत सरकारी सेवकों के आश्रितों की भत नियमावली 1974 में वर्णित नियमों के निवपरीत इके माता-निपता दोो की सरकारी सेवा में होे के कार निरस्त 2 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that when the application was submitted on 13.1.2025 petitioner’s father was not employed in any government service since he has retired prior to it i.e. on on 31.12.2024. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring the aforesaid facts, submitted that U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, as amended was adopted by Department of Basic Education that if the living parent was employed in the government service, compassionate appointment could be given, however, it would not be applicable in present case since the petitioner’s father got retired prior to the date of submitting application. 7. The word ‘already employed’ (pehle se sewayojit na ho) would mean that it will not include a retired government employee. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner lastly submitted that eligibility criteria would be considered on the date of submitting application and not necessary on the date when the government employee died in harness and he refers that a period of 5 years is provided for that purpose. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the aforesaid submission and submitted that simple reading of letter dated 02.11.2021 (scheme for compassionate appointment) makes it clear that the words used in Rules, 1974 are very specific. 10. The word ‘already employed’ (pehle se sewayojit na ho) contemplates where the government employee has retired also not necessary in employment. 11. I have considered the above submissions and perused the record. 12. Principle of golden rule of interpretation is well settled that words and contents of any Act or the provision at the first instance should be read as it is without adding or deleting any words and in case of any ambiguity 3 other interpretation could be possible in the amended act, rules or the Government Order. 13. As referred above, the words are very specifically used ‘already employed’ (pehle se sewayojit na ho). 14. The Rules, 1974 does not use the word ‘Employment’ or ‘current employment’. It means that if other parent was in service or retired from service. 15. A distinction made by the learned counsel for the petitioner would be contrary to the bare reading of provisions, therefore, cannot be accepted. 16. An interpretation which goes contrary to the scope and very object of the rules cannot be accepted, therefore, Court is of the opinion that on facts since the father of the petitioner was in government service, and when the petitioner submitted the application for compassionate appointment it would have some effect though his father was retired as it shall be considered within the word ‘already employed’, therefore, the reason assigned in the impugned order is legally sustainable and there is no reason to interfere with it. 17. The golden rule is that the words of a statute must be prima facie given their ordinary meaning, specifically when words used are clear, plain and unambiguous. (See Illachi Devi (D) by LRS. And Ors. Vs. Jain Society, Protector of Orphan India and Ors. (2003) 8 SCC 413.) 18. Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 20.5.2025 SB Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP BHATTACHARYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad