Compassionate Appointee Can't Be Removed For Alleged Suppression Of Facts Already Known To Authorities: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that a person appointed on compassionate grounds following his mother's death cannot be removed from service on allegations that he concealed his father's government employment, when the authorities were aware of that fact at the time of appointment and had granted him the job after verifying his documents.The Court held that petitioner's termination in this case, ordered nearly twelve years after the appointment, without any inquiry or charge-sheet or any witness being examined, was illegal.The petitioner's mother was working as an Assistant Teacher at Kanjay Junior High School, Azamgarh, when she died on November 5, 2008. His father was employed as an Accountant in the Public Works Department and retired on February 28, 2009. He subsequently passed away on March 20, 2024.Since the petitioner was a minor at the time of his mother's death, he applied for compassionate appointment only after attaining majority in 2011. On March 29, 2012, the Block Education Officer, Urban Area, Azamgarh, recommended his appointment to the District Basic Education Officer after verifying his documents. The recommendation specifically recorded that the petitioner's father had retired from government service.Pursuant to the recommendation, the petitioner was appointed as a Junior Clerk on September 27, 2013, joined service the following day, and was promoted to the post of Senior Clerk in December 2019.The dispute arose after one Arun Kumar Singh lodged a complaint alleging that the petitioner had secured compassionate appointment by concealing material facts and relying on fabricated documents. Although the petitioner replied to multiple show-cause notices issued between 2022 and 2025, the District Basic Education Officer terminated his services on August 11, 2025.Petitioner approached the High Court seeking quashing of the termination order and reinstatement as Senior Clerk with salary.The Court noted that the counter affidavit did not deny petitioner's assertion that no inquiry had been conducted and no charge-sheet was given to him before termination.The Court observed that no complaint had been made against the petitioner at any time during his service until his services were terminated. It noted that the petitioner had drawn salary and other benefits till the impugned order was passed.Justice Prakash Padia held,“In the letter written by the respondent No.6 to respondent No.4, it is clearly mentioned that father of the petitioner retired from Government Service meaning thereby that the fact that father of the petitioner was in Government Service at the time of death of his mother was well within the knowledge of the respondents at the time of issuance of the letter of appointment. In this view of the matter, the Court is of the opinion that the order is bad in the eyes of law.”The Court relied on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in Shiv Kumar v. State of U.P., where an appointment made in place of a deceased father while the mother was in government service was upheld. It was held there that since the applicant had not suppressed his mother's employment, it was for the authorities to exercise due diligence and verify the material facts before appointing him, and the benefit could not be withdrawn for a lapse attributable to the authorities themselves. The Court further relied on Md. Zamil Ahmed v. State of Bihar, in which the Supreme Court held that even though the appointment was contrary to state policy, the State had by its own conduct condoned its lapse by the passage of time and could not take advantage of its own mistake, the appointee having made no false declaration and suppressed no material fact. The position, the Supreme Court held, would have been different had the appointee committed fraud, manipulation or suppression.Reliance was also placed on Vishwaroop v. State of U.P., where the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court held that the State had no justification to wake up after 12 years and find infirmity in an appointment where the appointee was not responsible for suppressing any material fact. Accordingly, allowing the writ petition, the Court issued a mandamus to the District Basic Education Officer, Azamgarh and the Block Education Officer, Urban Area, Azamgarh to reinstate petitioner as Senior Clerk and pay his salary month by month as and when it falls due. Holding the termination wholly illegal, the Court held petitioner was entitled to back wages and other service benefits. Case Title: Abhay Kumar Srivastava v. State Of U.P. And 5 Others 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 447Case Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 447Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Adarsh Singh, Digvijay, Navin Kumar SharmaCounsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Shashi Prakash SinghClick Here To Read/Download Order

Compassionate Appointee Can't Be Removed For Alleged Suppression Of Facts Already Known To Authorities: Allahabad High Court

Upasna Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasna Agrawal

Compassionate Appointee Can't Be Removed For Alleged Suppression Of Facts Already Known To Authorities: Allahabad High Court

Upasna Agrawal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Upasna Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers