In a petition filed by a minor studying in the 12th Standard before the Allahabad High Court against the compassionate appointment granted to her stepmother, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Manju Ranu Chauhan stated that the respondent authority had failed to exercise a higher decree of care to ensure the safety of the minor petitioner before granting compassionate appointment to the stepmother, and directed the authority to file an affidavit along with measures to be taken for the protection of the minor petitioner.
The petitioner’s father was employed with Nagar Nigam when he died on 04-06-2023. The petitioner’s mother had already passed away in 2009, and her father had remarried her stepmother (respondent 4). After the father’s death, the stepmother applied to claim a compassionate appointment and was granted the same, along with other benefits, without complying with the conditions stipulated under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 (1974 Rules). The respondents submitted that two cheques worth approximately Rs. 10,69,960/- had already been issued in the petitioner’s favour.
The underlying obligation of the 1974 Rules was that the appointed dependant must ensure the maintenance and welfare of the other surviving members of the family, and any deviation from this principle would defeat the purpose of the compassionate appointment scheme.
The Court perused the record and stated that the petitioner was placed in a disadvantageous position and that, without any assurance of her future security, only two cheques had been issued in her name, despite her being a minor. It was found that the petitioner was led to believe she would be granted other benefits, but the failure to do so left her in an unfortunate situation.
It was stated that since the petitioner was a minor who had lost both her parents, the authority was duty-bound to ensure the security and future welfare of the petitioner while granting a compassionate appointment. The Court noted that no affidavit or undertaking had been obtained from the stepmother to ensure the petitioner’s maintenance, education, and future security. It was said that the omission reflected a serious lapse in the discharge of the statutory duty and undermined the purpose of the compassionate appointment scheme.
Further, the Court noted that, in granting a compassionate appointment to the stepmother, the authority must have exercised a higher degree of care and prudence for the petitioner’s welfare. It was stated that the authority was under a statutory and moral obligation to ensure the interests of the minor dependent before finalizing the appointment.
Thereafter, the respondent authority informed the Court that, in accordance with previous orders, an affidavit was obtained from the stepmother, in which she had agreed to pay Rs. 5000/- per month towards the petitioner’s maintenance. The Court directed respondents 2 and 3 to file an affidavit annexing the stepmother’s affidavit along with measures to be taken for the minor’s safety.
The Court observed that even when the government promotes various schemes for the girl child, relations are being disregarded, and that it is the duty of each and every individual to protect the future of bereaved minors, especially the girl child. Thereafter, the Court expressed its expectation that the stepmother would adopt healthy behaviour towards the minor petitioner.
Lastly, the Court noted that the Nagar Ayukt had explained the precautions to be taken in the future when granting compassionate appointments and directed that the case be listed on 20-11-2025.
Appearances:
For Petitioner – Parvesh Kumar Pandey, Vijay Babu
For Respondent(s) – C.S.C., Harshit Pandey
