Unmarried Brother Eligible For Compassionate Appointment If Employee's Wife Pre-Deceased Him: Allahabad High Court

A bench of Justice Manish Mathur held so as he observed that Rules of 1974 are beneficial in nature and must be interpreted with a liberal and purpose-oriented approach to ensure that the object of providing relief to the family of a deceased government servant is not defeated.

For context, as per Rule 2(c)(iv) of 1974 Rules, an unmarried brother is included within the definition of 'family' only if the deceased government servant was unmarried, otherwise, he is excluded.

Now, in the present case, the petitioner's elder brother (Mahendra Pratap), a government employee, died in harness on October 9, 2015. His wife had pre-deceased him on February 12, 2010.

The petitioner, claiming to be dependent on his brother who was the sole breadwinner, sought compassionate appointment.

However, his claim was rejected by the authorities on the ground that as per the applicable rules, since the deceased was married, the petitioner is clearly debarred from entitlement

Rejecting this reasoning, the Court clarified that the primary purpose of Rules of 1974 are beneficial in nature and they provide primary right to claim such compassionate appointment has been conferred upon the spouse.

However, the bench added, where the spouse of the deceased employee is no longer alive, that rationale would have no relevance.

"…the said purpose of inclusion of clause 4 to Rule 2 (c) of Rules 1974 would not be applicable in those cases where the wife of deceased has pre-deceased him since no purpose would be served for such exclusion where the spouse of deceased employee himself is unavailable", the Court held.

In this regard, the single judge referred to the Supreme Court's decision in K.H. Nazar v. Matthew K. Jacob 2020, which stressed that provisions of a beneficial legislation must be given widest amplitude so that its purpose is not defeated.

Against this backdrop, the Court held that the object sought to be achieved by exclusion indicated in the rules pertaining to unmarried brother would be inapplicable where the spouse of deceased employee is also deceased at the time of consideration of applications for compassionate appointment

Consequently, Justice Mathur held that the rejection of the petitioner's claim on that ground is unsustainable and thus, it quashed the impugned order dated May 25, 2016.

The bench directed the Assistant Controller, Vidhik Maap Vigyan, Faizabad Range, to reconsider the petitioner's application if he could substantiate dependency on his deceased brother.

The authority has been ordered to take a fresh decision within six weeks.

Case title - Devendra Pratap Singh vs. State Of U.P Thru Prin Secy Consumer Protection And Ors