The Allahabad High Court has held that a pending criminal case, in the absence of any proven misconduct or criminal history, cannot by itself be a valid ground to deny compassionate appointment. Justice Ajit Kumar delivered the judgment on July 3, 2025, in Writ-A No. 947 of 2024, titled Mahesh Kumar Chauhan v. State of U.P. and Others, setting aside orders dated December 19, 2023, and January 2, 2024, which had deferred the petitioner’s appointment on compassionate grounds.
Background
The petitioner, Mahesh Kumar Chauhan, had sought compassionate appointment following the death of his father, who was employed as a Group D employee in the respondent department and passed away on January 31, 2023. Chauhan’s application was deferred by the authorities solely on the basis of a pending criminal case against him.
Two impugned orders were challenged:
- The order dated 19.12.2023 rejected his claim until his acquittal in the pending case.
- The order dated 02.01.2024 stated that the District Magistrate’s character certificate would only be considered after acquittal, as it included a rider regarding the ongoing case.
The character certificate issued on 24.07.2023 by the District Magistrate, Deoria, acknowledged the pending criminal case but clarified that its relevance would only be nullified if the petitioner was convicted.
Petitioner’s Arguments
Counsel for the petitioner, Shri Arun Kumar, submitted:
- The FIR did not assign any specific role to the petitioner and arose out of longstanding enmity between families.
- The petitioner had no prior criminal history.
- The character certificate was valid and had not been recalled.
- As per the Supreme Court’s judgment in Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471, mere pendency of a criminal case should not be an automatic bar, especially in compassionate appointments.
Respondents’ Stand
The learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel defended the impugned orders but did not dispute that the District Magistrate had issued a valid character certificate on the relevant date without declaring it meaningless.
Court’s Analysis
The Court emphasized the objective behind compassionate appointments: to provide immediate relief to the bereaved family. It observed:
“If the appointment is deferred only for flimsy grounds or only on the ground that the employer does not find in its discretion it to be appropriate to issue appointment order and to defer it for a long period to wait till the final outcome of the criminal trial, the very purpose and object to provide compassionate appointment would get defeated.”
Justice Ajit Kumar noted that on the date of the character certificate, the petitioner was not convicted, and the certificate was valid and issued by a competent authority. The order stated:
“In these circumstances, therefore, the applicant could have been offered compassionate appointment in order to provide immediate succour to the family and such appointment could have been made subject to the final outcome of the criminal case.”
Quoting from Avtar Singh, the Court reiterated that suppression of facts or pendency of a criminal case must be assessed with objectivity and fairness:
“Though a person who has suppressed the material information cannot claim unfettered right for appointment… he has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily…”
Decision
The Court concluded that the employer had wrongly denied appointment based solely on the pending case and the conditional nature of the character certificate. It held:
“In matters where criminal case is pending and character certificate has been issued by the District Magistrate may be subject to the final outcome of the criminal case, it should not become a guiding factor for the employer to deny compassionate appointment…”
Accordingly, the Court quashed the impugned orders dated 19.12.2023 and 02.01.2024, and directed the competent authority to reconsider the petitioner’s case and pass an appropriate order offering compassionate appointment on a suitable post within two months from the date of presentation of the certified copy of the judgment. The authority is at liberty to make the appointment subject to the final outcome of the criminal case.
Case Title: Mahesh Kumar Chauhan v. State of U.P. and Others
Case No.: Writ – A No. 947 of 2024
Bench: Hon’ble Justice Ajit Kumar
Counsel for Petitioner: Shri Arun Kumar
Counsel for Respondents: Learned Standing Counsel
