Unmarried Brother Can Get Compassionate Job If Deceased Employee’s Wife Died Earlier, Rules Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court recently quashed the rejection of a compassionate appointment application filed by a man whose brother, a government employee, died in harness, holding that the exclusion of unmarried brothers from the “family” definition under the Dying in Harness Rules does not apply when the deceased’s spouse had already pre-deceased him.

The bench of Justice Manish Mathur said that the beneficial intent of the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 must be interpreted liberally to avoid defeating its welfare purpose.

The petitioner, Devendra Pratap Singh, had approached the high court challenging the order dated May 25, 2016, by which his application for appointment on compassionate grounds was rejected. Singh’s elder brother, late Mahendra Pratap, was employed with the Consumer Protection Department and passed away on October 9, 2015, while still in service. His wife had died five years earlier, in 2010, leaving no children behind. Singh claimed he was financially dependent on his brother, who was the family’s only earning member.

However, the authorities denied his request for employment, citing Rule 2(c)(iv) of the 1974 Rules, which limits the inclusion of unmarried brothers as family members only in cases where the deceased employee was himself unmarried. The State argued that since Mahendra Pratap had been married, Singh’s application was barred by this rule.

Rejecting the State’s reasoning, Justice Mathur observed that the purpose of compassionate appointments is to provide immediate financial relief to the family of the deceased government servant. Court found that the restriction against dependent brothers applies only when the spouse is alive, as the rules are designed to prioritize the spouse as the primary beneficiary.

“The exclusion indicated in Clause 4 of Rule 2(c) of the Rules of 1974 is in case the deceased was unmarried. Evidently, the reasoning for such exclusion would be in terms of Clause 1 of Rule 2(c), since the primary right to claim such compassionate appointment has been conferred upon the spouse,” the court noted. “No purpose would be served for such exclusion where the spouse of the deceased employee is unavailable,” Justice Mathur added.

To support this interpretation, the bench referred to the Supreme Court judgment in K.H. Nazar v. Matthew K. Jacob (2020), which held that beneficial legislations must receive a purpose-oriented and liberal construction. The court also cited Director General, CRPF v. Janardan Singh (2018) to emphasize that classification under law must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved, warning that rigid application could lead to discrimination under Article 14 of the Constitution.

Holding that the authorities’ rejection of Singh’s application was arbitrary, the high court quashed the impugned order and issued a writ of mandamus directing the Assistant Controller, Vidhik Maap Vigyan, Faizabad Range, to revisit the petitioner’s application within six weeks, provided he can substantiate that he was indeed dependent on the deceased.

The purpose of the 1974 Rules is to provide succour to the family of the deceased government servant who was the sole breadwinner. Such beneficial intent cannot be curtailed by a rigid or literal interpretation of exclusionary clauses, the court held.

Allowing the petition, court directed both parties to bear their own costs.

Case Title: Devendra Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors.

Order Date: October 16, 2025

Bench: Justice Manish Mathur