The Allahabad High Court recently quashed an order dismissing a ten-year-old compassionate appointment, emphasizing that time and length of service are crucial considerations in such matters. In the judgment delivered by Justice Salil Kumar Rai, the court reinstated Smt. Sugandha Upadhyay, whose appointment as a Senior Assistant was earlier annulled on grounds of alleged non-disclosure of her mother’s employment status.
The case, WRIT – A No. 4597 of 2024, was filed by Smt. Sugandha Upadhyay against the State of Uttar Pradesh and others. The petitioner was represented by Ashok Kumar Dwivedi, Kedar Nath Mishra, and Virendra Kumar Yadav, while the State was represented by the Chief Standing Counsel.
Sugandha Upadhyay, daughter of deceased government employee Anil Kumar Upadhyay, was appointed on compassionate grounds as a Junior Assistant in 2013. Her father, who worked as a Welfare Assistant in the Labour Department, passed away in 2012. Following her father’s demise, she applied for compassionate appointment, claiming dependence on him as her mother and father lived separately.
Background of the Case
The petitioner’s appointment came under scrutiny following a complaint by a retired Senior Assistant, alleging that Sugandha was not entitled to a compassionate appointment under the Uttar Pradesh Government Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 (Rules, 1974). The complaint claimed that Sugandha’s mother, Smt. Meena Upadhyay, was already employed as a Class-IV employee in the same department, disqualifying the petitioner from such an appointment under Rule 5.
A show-cause notice was issued to Sugandha in April 2022, to which she responded by asserting that she had not concealed any information. She further contended that she was dependent on her father at the time of his death and that her mother’s employment was known to the authorities at the time of her appointment. Despite her explanation, her appointment was annulled, and she was dismissed from service in July 2022. The Labour Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh, also upheld her dismissal in January 2024, leading to the current petition before the High Court.
Key Legal Issues
1. Applicability of Rule 5 of the Rules, 1974:
– Rule 5 prohibits compassionate appointment if the spouse of the deceased government employee is already employed by the government.
– Sugandha argued that since her parents lived separately and she was solely dependent on her father, Rule 5 should not bar her appointment.
2. Requirement of Complete Disclosure under Rule 6:
– Rule 6 mandates applicants to disclose details of family members, including their employment status.
– The petitioner claimed that she did not conceal any information and that her mother’s employment was known to the selection committee at the time of her appointment.
3. Impact of Length of Service:
– The petitioner had served for over a decade and was promoted to Senior Assistant before her dismissal.
– The court needed to decide whether the length of service and the absence of fraud or misrepresentation could justify setting aside her dismissal.
Court’s Observations and Decision
Justice Salil Kumar Rai underscored that the petitioner’s appointment was not obtained by fraud or misrepresentation. He noted that the petitioner, at the time of her application, was only 18 years old and not expected to fully understand the technical requirements of the Rules, 1974. The court found that there was no clear evidence of intentional non-disclosure regarding the mother’s employment, suggesting that the oversight, if any, was on the part of the authorities responsible for the appointment process.
Citing the Supreme Court’s judgment in Md. Zamil Ahmed vs. State of Bihar (2016), Justice Rai stated that “time and length of service are of paramount importance in cases of compassionate appointment.” He emphasized that it was “too late for the respondents to cancel the appointment after ten years,” particularly when the petitioner was not at fault for any misrepresentation.
The court concluded that the dismissal was contrary to law, directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with immediate effect and provide all consequential benefits, including arrears of salary. The judgment emphasized that “a welfare state cannot act belatedly to correct its own mistakes when the appointee is not responsible for any fraud.”
