In a significant ruling that reinforces the humanitarian essence of compassionate appointments, the Allahabad High Court has held that an unmarried brother of a deceased government servant can be considered eligible for appointment under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 if the deceased employee’s spouse had predeceased him. The decision, delivered by Justice Manish Mathur in Devendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors. (Writ-A No. 34651 of 2018), marks a critical interpretation of Rule 2(c) of the 1974 Rules and emphasises a liberal, purposive construction of welfare legislation.
Background of the Case
The petitioner, Devendra Pratap Singh, sought compassionate appointment following the death of his elder brother, Mahendra Pratap, who was employed with the State of Uttar Pradesh and passed away in harness on 9 October 2015. Mahendra Pratap’s wife, however, had died much earlier on 12 February 2010, leaving him without a surviving spouse or children.
The petitioner, being an unmarried brother dependent on the deceased employee, applied for compassionate appointment under the 1974 Rules. However, his application was rejected by the competent authority on 25 May 2016, citing that the deceased was married during his lifetime and hence, under Rule 2(c)(iv), the petitioner was not covered within the definition of “family” eligible for compassionate appointment.
Aggrieved by this decision, the petitioner approached the High Court, contending that the rejection was arbitrary, mechanical, and contrary to the object of the compassionate appointment scheme.
Key Issue Before the Court
The pivotal question before the Court was:
- Whether an unmarried brother of a deceased government employee, whose wife had predeceased him, can be treated as part of the “family” under Rule 2(c) of the 1974 Rules, thereby entitling him to compassionate appointment?
Statutory Framework: U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974
Rule 2(c) of the 1974 Rules defines “family” as including:
- Wife or husband;
- Sons/adopted sons;
- Daughters (including adopted daughters) and widowed daughters-in-law;
- Unmarried brothers, unmarried sisters and widowed mother dependent on the deceased Government servant, if the deceased Government servant was unmarried;
- Specified relations of missing government servants declared dead by competent courts.
The State relied upon clause (iv) to argue that unmarried brothers are eligible only if the deceased employee was unmarried. Since Mahendra Pratap had been married (even though his wife had predeceased him), the State contended that the petitioner’s claim was statutorily barred.
Arguments Advanced
Petitioner’s Contentions
- The petitioner argued that the 1974 Rules are beneficial in nature, intended to provide immediate financial relief to the family of a deceased government employee.
- He emphasised that since the deceased’s wife had predeceased him, there was no surviving spouse, and therefore, the purpose behind restricting clause (iv) should not apply.
- The petitioner further contended that denying compassionate appointment in such cases would defeat the welfare objective of the Rules and cause undue hardship to dependents genuinely left destitute.
Respondents’ (State’s) Contentions
- The State maintained that the language of Rule 2(c)(iv) was explicit and left no room for interpretation: only if the deceased employee was unmarried could unmarried brothers claim entitlement.
- Since the deceased was admittedly married during his lifetime, the petitioner was outside the statutory definition of “family” and thus ineligible for compassionate appointment.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
1. Purpose of Compassionate Appointment
Justice Manish Mathur underscored that the primary purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate financial support to the family of a deceased employee who dies while in service, leaving the family without any means of livelihood. Thus, the 1974 Rules are beneficial and welfare-oriented, requiring liberal interpretation to prevent injustice and fulfill their humanitarian objective.
2. Interpretation of Rule 2(c)(iv)
The Court observed that Rule 2(c)(iv) includes unmarried brothers within the definition of “family” only if the deceased was unmarried. The intent behind this restriction, the Court explained, was to protect the rights of the surviving spouse, who ordinarily has the first claim to compassionate appointment.
However, in cases where the spouse has predeceased the government servant, this rationale ceases to exist. The exclusion of unmarried brothers in such circumstances would defeat the purpose of the welfare scheme by depriving genuine dependents of relief.
3. Beneficial Legislation Must Be Construed Liberally
Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in K.H. Nazar v. Matthew K. Jacob [(2020) 14 SCC 126], the Court reiterated that provisions of a beneficial legislation must be liberally and purposively construed. Literal interpretation that frustrates the intent of the law must be avoided.
The Court quoted Justice O. Chinnappa Reddy’s observations in Workmen v. American Express International Banking Corporation [(1985) 4 SCC 71], emphasising that “semantic luxuries are misplaced in interpretation of bread-and-butter statutes”, and welfare legislation must be interpreted to advance its object rather than defeat it.
4. Principle of Reasonable Classification
The Court also relied on Director General, CRPF v. Janardan Singh [2018 LAB IC 3302], reiterating that while reasonable classification under Article 14 is permissible, it must have a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. The classification in Rule 2(c)(iv)—excluding unmarried brothers when the deceased was married—had a rational basis only so long as the spouse survived. Once the spouse had predeceased, the same reasoning could not logically apply.
Judgment
After analysing the legislative intent, constitutional principles, and judicial precedents, the High Court concluded:
“The purpose of exclusion under Rule 2(c)(iv) would not be applicable where the wife of the deceased employee had predeceased him, since no purpose would be served by such exclusion where the spouse is unavailable.”
Accordingly, the Court quashed the impugned order dated 25 May 2016 and issued a writ of certiorari setting it aside. It further directed the Assistant Controller, Vidhik Maap Vigyan, Faizabad Range, to reconsider the petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment within six weeks, provided he could substantiate his dependence on the deceased brother.
The writ petition was allowed, with each party bearing its own costs.
Conclusion
Allahabad High Court’s ruling in Devendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. exemplifies the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the spirit of social welfare in administrative frameworks. By recognising the eligibility of an unmarried brother when the deceased’s wife had predeceased him, the Court bridged a legislative gap that could have otherwise perpetuated injustice.
This decision will serve as a persuasive precedent for similar cases across India, reminding authorities that compassionate appointment is not a matter of rigid eligibility but of humane justice—intended to alleviate the distress of those left behind by a government servant who dies in harness.