The Allahabad High Court ruled that an unmarried brother of a deceased government employee is eligible for a compassionate appointment if the employee’s spouse had predeceased him, emphasizing a liberal interpretation of welfare-oriented service rules.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
UTTAR PRADESH: In a landmark ruling, the Allahabad High Court has quashed the rejection of a compassionate appointment application filed by a man whose brother, a government employee, had died in harness. The Court held that the exclusion of unmarried brothers from the “family” definition under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 does not apply when the deceased’s spouse has already pre-deceased him.
The decision, delivered by Justice Manish Mathur, reinforces the welfare intent behind the 1974 Rules, emphasizing that such beneficial legislation must be interpreted liberally to serve its humanitarian purpose.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Devendra Pratap Singh, approached the High Court challenging an order dated May 25, 2016, by which his plea for compassionate appointment was rejected. His elder brother, Mahendra Pratap, who served in the Consumer Protection Department, passed away on October 9, 2015, while still in service.
Notably, Mahendra Pratap’s wife had died five years earlier, in 2010, and the couple had no children. Devendra Pratap Singh asserted that he was financially dependent on his late brother, who was the family’s only earning member.
Despite this, authorities rejected his request under Rule 2(c)(iv) of the 1974 Rules, which restricts inclusion of unmarried brothers as “family members” only if the deceased employee was himself unmarried. The State Government argued that since Mahendra Pratap had been married, Singh was not eligible under the rule.
Court’s Observations
Rejecting the State’s interpretation, Justice Mathur noted that the objective of compassionate appointments is to provide immediate financial relief to the bereaved family of a government servant. The Court emphasized that the restriction on dependent brothers applies only when the spouse is alive, since the spouse is the primary beneficiary under the Rules.
“The exclusion indicated in Clause 4 of Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1974 is in case the deceased was unmarried. Evidently, the reasoning for such exclusion would be in terms of Clause 1 of Rule 2(c), since the primary right to claim such compassionate appointment has been conferred upon the spouse,”
the Court observed.
“No purpose would be served for such exclusion where the spouse of the deceased employee is unavailable,”
Justice Mathur added.
ALSO READ: Judges and Lawyers Must Ensure the Light of Justice Reaches Every Citizen: CJI Gavai
To support its reasoning, the Court cited two Supreme Court judgments:
- K.H. Nazar v. Matthew K. Jacob (2020) – which held that beneficial legislation must be given a liberal and purpose-oriented interpretation.
- Director General, CRPF v. Janardan Singh (2018) – which emphasized that any classification under law must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved, and warned that a rigid interpretation could violate Article 14 of the Constitution.
The High Court found the authorities’ rejection of Singh’s application arbitrary and unjustified. Accordingly, it quashed the impugned order and issued a writ of mandamus directing the Assistant Controller, Vidhik Maap Vigyan, Faizabad Range, to reconsider Singh’s application within six weeks, provided he can prove his financial dependency on the deceased.
The Court further held that the beneficial intent of the 1974 Rules, to provide relief to the family of a deceased government employee who was the sole breadwinner, cannot be restricted by literal or rigid interpretations.
Both parties were directed to bear their own costs.
Case Title:
Devendra Pratap Singh v. State Of U.P. Thru Prin Secy Consumer Protection And Ors.
WRIT – A No. – 34651 of 2018
READ JUDGMENT