Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:136030 Reserved on : 06.08.2025 Delivered on : 12.08.2025 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9997 of 2025 Petitioner :- Sohan Lal Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Siddharth Khare Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Jai Bahadur Singh Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. 1. Heard Shri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Jai Bahadur Singh, learned counsel for the respondent nos. 4, 5 and 6. 2. In the present writ petition, narrations of facts are not very specific and in a chronological order, however, factual aspects as referred during argument are that father of petitioner was also a government employee who died in harness and his adopted son was granted compassionate appointment on 12.12.1995. 3. Later on mother of petitioner who was also a government employee died in harness on 27.06.2021 and thereafter petitioner submitted his application for compassionate appointment. Initially a dispute arose whether mother of petitioner was regularly appointed or not and a writ petition was filed by petitioner bearing No.4076 of 2025, which was allowed by an order dated 05.04.2025, that petitioner’s mother 1 of 3 be considered as regular employee and petitioner’s case be considered for appointment on compassionate ground. 4. Subsequently, an application of petitioner for compassionate appointment was considered, however, by impugned order dated 18.06.2025, it was rejected on ground that spouse of deceased employee was already employed in government service and on his death his adopted son was already granted compassionate appointment. The aforesaid order is impugned in present writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that aforesaid provision and interpretation of word ‘already employed’ was a subject matter of consideration in Faisal Hasan Siddiqui Vs. State of U.P. and 5 others, Writ-A No.- 8732 of 2022 as well as Rina Vs. State of U.P. and others, Writ- A No.6045 of 2022 Learned counsel for petitioner refers the relevant part of Siddiqui (supra), which is reproduced hereinafter :- “In view of the said interpretation given by the respondents in Rule 5, it is clear that the phrase 'spouse of the deceased government servant is not already employed', in Rule 5, has to be interpreted to mean that the spouse should be in active government servant. Even otherwise, the proceedings have been initiated after a period of seven years without following the rules applicable to the services of the petitioner or even the Government Order which prescribes the manner in which the proceedings have to be initiated vide Government Order dated 04.09.2000, as such, on all the above grounds, the writ petition is liable to be allowed. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 19.05.2022 is set aside. The writ petition is allowed with direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to continue in employment. It is made clear that the petitioner would be entitled to all the benefits which the petitioner was getting prior to the impugned order being passed in accordance with law. The petitioner shall also be entitled to all the consequential benefits.” 2 of 3 6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent submitted that not only petitioner’s claim was rejected on a ground that his father was already employed in government service but on other ground that his adopted son was already granted compassionate appointment. He also submitted that financial position of the petitioner is also not on record. 7. I have considered the above submissions and perused the record. On basis of aforesaid fact, the Court takes note that petitioner’s father has died and his adopted son was granted compassionate appointment in the year 1995 i.e. about 30 years. It is not on record whether said beneficiary has looked after the family i.e. her adopted mother or not. Much water has flown thereafter, therefore, in given circumstances, interpretation of words ‘already employed’ may not be strictly construed, therefore, ignoring the aforesaid aspect, the claim of petitioner can be considered afresh though the respondents are still have liberty to consider other aspect of the case i.e. financial position of petitioner since there is no such averment in this writ petition, therefore, impugned order dated 18.06.2025 is set aside and matter is remitted for fresh consideration with a direction that it shall not be rejected on ground being barred in terms of Rule 5 (1) of Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974. 8. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of with aforesaid observation and direction. Order Date :- 12.08.2025 P. Pandey 3 of 3 Digitally signed by :- PUSHPENDRA PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad