Legal Analysis of Employment Discrimination and Compassionate Appointment

The High Court’s thorough legal analysis delves into the intricacies of employment discrimination and compassionate appointment within the public sector. By examining the definition of regular vacancies and the entitlements for dependants of deceased employees, the court provides key insights into the nuances of the case. The case sheds light on the significance of regular appointments, diverse employment roles, and the application of rules concerning compassionate appointments. Let’s explore the implications of this legal analysis on employment practices and entitlements.


  • The High Court deemed the selection process of the respondent’s father as unambiguous
  • It was against the regular vacancy norms
  • The father had submitted all necessary documents to the Irrigation Department

Also Read: Supreme Court Judgment on Single Till Mechanism for HRAB Calculation: A Comprehensive Analysis


  • The respondent argues that since his father was employed for more than 3 years in continuous service, he should be considered a Government Servant and entitled to benefits.
  • The respondent’s father worked for 13 years until his passing and was denied the benefit of compassionate appointment, unlike others in similar situations.
  • The appellants claim that the respondent’s father was not regularized and therefore the respondent is not entitled to compassionate employment benefits.
  • Reference is made to the case of Gen. Manager, Uttaranchal Jal Sansthan vs Laxmi Devi & Ors. (2009) 7 SCC 205 which deals with the Rule in question.
  • The relevant extract of Rule 2(a)(iii) pertaining to ‘Government servant’ is provided, emphasizing the requirement of three years continuous service in a regular vacancy.
  • The respondent seeks the benefit of compassionate appointment under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974.
  • The appellants challenge the Division Bench’s judgment granting the respondent compassionate appointment, citing the father’s lack of regularization.
  • Father of respondent was transferred between Irrigation Department and Panchayati Raj Department during his 13 years of employment.
  • He was transferred 2-3 times by the appellants and also appointed as a polling officer by State Election Commission on multiple occasions.
  • Learned counsel for respondent highlighted the diverse roles and transfers of the respondent’s father during his employment.
  • Appellants contend that the Rule analyzed in a previous judgment does not apply to daily wagers even if they have served in regular vacancies for 3 years.

Also Read: Ineligibility of Resolution Professional and Resolution Applicant – Revisiting the Correct Interpretation of Section 29-A of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code


  • The High Court found that the deceased employee’s appointment was against a regular vacancy from the inception.
  • The deceased employee, although labeled as a Part Time tubewell operator, was treated as a regular employee by receiving a regular pay-scale.
  • The father of the respondent was transferred between departments, indicating characteristics of a regular employee.
  • The deceased employee’s services were volunteered for election duties by the State Election Commission, a task typically designated for Government employees only.
  • The appointment of the father of the respondent was found to be conducted in accordance with the norms after verifying all certificates.
  • The Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court and previous Supreme Court judgments supported the view that a regular vacancy refers to posts sanctioned by competent authorities.
  • The High Court criticized the denial of employment to the father of the respondent and emphasized that drawing a salary in a regular pay-scale does not prove regular vacancy.
  • Balram and Smt. Geeta Devi faced discrimination due to their fathers and husband dying while in the same employment scenario.
  • Previous litigation between the appellants and the deceased father of the respondent possibly led to the discrimination.
  • No satisfactory explanation was given for the discrimination.
  • The Division Bench of the High Court’s course of action was deemed lawful and did not warrant interference.
  • The appellant-Department was not permitted to harass the respondent.
  • The impugned order was deemed to be in accordance with the law.

Also Read: Selection and Appointment of Judicial Officers in Himachal Pradesh


  • Necessary orders to be issued in the case of the respondent within one month from the date of the order.
  • The appeal is dismissed with costs throughout.


Case Number: C.A. No.-004575-004575 / 2021

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *