Allahabad High Court Questions Nagar Nigam For Granting Compassionate Appointment To Stepmother Without Ensuring Future Security Of Minor Daughter

The Allahabad High Court while reiterating that the purpose of compassionate appointment is to provide immediate succor to the family and to ensure that the dependents, especially minor children, do not suffer destitution has called out the Nagar Nigam, Prayagraj for granting it to stepmother without ensuring future security of the minor daughter of the deceased employee.

The Court was considering an Appeal against an order granting compassionate appointment as well as other benefits to the stepmother.

The bench of Justice Manju Rani Chauhan held, "It is a settled proposition of law, as held in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and reiterated in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh v. Shashi Kumar, that compassionate appointment is not a vested right but an exception carved out to mitigate the financial distress faced by the family of a deceased government employee. The purpose of such appointment is to provide immediate succor to the family and to ensure that the dependents, especially minor children, do not suffer destitution. Reference may also be made to the judgement of Apex Court passed in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh v. Premlata."

The Appellant was represented by Advocate Parvesh Kumar Pandey while the Respondent was represented by Central Standing Counsel.

Facts of the Case

Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that Petitioner's father, who was working in the Nagar Nigam, died in harness in 2013. The first wife of the deceased employee had already expired in the year 2009, leaving behind the Petitioner as her only issue. After death of petitioner's mother in the year 2009 her father remarried.

It was alleged that the second wife of deceased employee, who is stepmother of the Petitioner moved an Application claiming for compassionate appointment without disclosing certain facts

It was further alleged that she was granted appointment as well as other benefits without adhering to the conditions stipulated under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 regarding maintenance of the Dependents of the deceased employee, including the Petitioner.

Reasoning By Court

The Court at the outset pointed out that the underlying obligation remains that the dependent so appointed shall ensure the maintenance and welfare of the other surviving members of the family, keeping in mind the object and spirit of the Rules 1974.

Noting that any deviation from this principle would defeat the very purpose for which the compassionate appointment scheme has been framed, the Court ruled that the competent authority ought to have ascertained, by means of a detailed verification and through an affidavit from the appointee, that appropriate arrangements had been made for the maintenance, education, and overall well-being of the petitioner.

"The petitioner, a minor student of Class XII, has lost both her parents and is presently under the guardianship of her maternal uncle. In such exceptional circumstances, while granting compassionate appointment to the stepmother, the competent authority was duty bound to ensure the safety, security, and future welfare of the petitioner. However, the record does not reveal that any effective steps were taken by the competent authority to ascertain whether the petitioner, being a minor, has been adequately provided for or whether the appointee (stepmother) has undertaken any responsibility towards her welfare. No affidavit or undertaking appears to have been obtained from the appointee assuring the maintenance, education, and future security of the minor petitioner. Such omission reflects a serious lapse in the discharge of statutory duty and undermines the very purpose of the scheme of compassionate appointment", the Court ruled.

It was thus of the view that in case it was found that the Petitioner’s interest has been jeopardized or no sufficient safeguard has been ensured, appropriate action, including reconsideration of the appointment should have been undertaken in accordance with law, however, the record does not indicate that any such inquiry or safeguard was undertaken prior to extending the benefit of compassionate appointment to the stepmother.

The matter was accordingly listed for November 13, 2025.

Cause Title: Varsha v. State Of Uttar Pradesh And 3 Others

Appearances:

Appellant- Advocate Parvesh Kumar Pandey, Advocate Vijay Babu

Respondent- Central Standing Counsel, Advocate Harshit Pandey

Click here to read/ download Order