Allahabad HC Quashes Termination of Compassionate Appointee After 12 Years, Orders Reinstatement with Back Wages

Justice Prakash Padia held that a clerk appointed on compassionate grounds in 2013 could not be removed in 2025 without inquiry or charge-sheet, especially when the department had full knowledge of relevant facts at appointment.

The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, in a judgment delivered on 10 July 2026, quashed the termination of a Senior Clerk who had served for over twelve years in the office of the Block Education Officer, Urban Area, Azamgarh. Justice Prakash Padia, sitting singly, found that the District Basic Education Officer terminated the petitioner's services on 11 August 2025 without conducting any inquiry, issuing a charge-sheet, or examining a single witness. The court directed reinstatement on the post of Senior Clerk along with back wages and other service benefits, to be paid within two months of production of a certified copy of the order.

The Compassionate Appointment and Its Background

The petitioner, Abhay Kumar Srivastava, lost his mother, Pushpa Srivastava, on 5 November 2008. She was working as an Assistant Teacher in Kanjay Junior High School, Station Urban Area, District Azamgarh. His father, Girish Chandra Srivastava, was employed as an Accountant in the Public Works Department; he retired on 28 February 2009 and passed away on 20 March 2024.

Because Abhay was a minor when his mother died, he could only apply for compassionate appointment once he attained majority. He did so on 30 November 2011, submitting an application before the District Basic Education Officer, Azamgarh (respondent No. 4), under the U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (Rules, 1974). These rules govern how a dependent of a deceased government servant may seek appointment in government service.

On 29 March 2012, respondent No. 6 — the Block Education Officer, Urban Area, Azamgarh — wrote to respondent No. 4 recommending Abhay's appointment after verifying his documents. That letter specifically noted that the petitioner's father had retired from government service. The appointment letter was issued on 27 September 2013, and Abhay joined as Junior Clerk on 28 September 2013. He was promoted to Senior Clerk on 13 December 2019 and had continuously drawn salary without any departmental action being initiated against him.

The Complaint and the Cascade of Show-Cause Notices

A private individual, Sri Arun Kumar Singh, filed a complaint before respondent No. 4 alleging that Abhay had obtained employment by concealing material facts and submitting fabricated documents. The core of the complaint was that at the time of the mother's death in 2008, the father was still in government service, which — according to the complainant — disqualified Abhay from compassionate appointment.

What followed was a prolonged sequence of show-cause notices issued over several years. The first show-cause notice came from respondent No. 6 on 15 July 2022. Abhay replied on 20 July 2022, denying any concealment and pointing out that appointment had followed due verification. Respondent No. 4 issued a second notice on 7 July 2023, replied to on 17 July 2023. A third notice followed on 5 October 2023, replied to on 10 October 2023. On 30 December 2022, the Additional Director of Education (Basic), Azamgarh Region, directed respondent No. 4 to initiate an inquiry into the appointment. Despite this direction, no inquiry was ever conducted. A fourth notice was issued on 6 August 2024, and a fifth on 4 August 2025. Abhay replied to the last on 5 August 2025. Six days later, on 11 August 2025, respondent No. 4 passed the order terminating his services.

Throughout this entire period, respondent No. 4 never issued a formal charge-sheet, never conducted a departmental inquiry, and never examined any witness. The counter-affidavit filed by respondents No. 4 to 6 did not deny these facts.

Why the Termination Could Not Stand

Justice Padia identified two independent and compounding infirmities in the impugned order.

The first was procedural: no inquiry was held, no charge-sheet was issued, and no witness was examined before the termination order was passed. The requirement to follow a fair procedure before visiting an employee with the penalty of termination is settled, and the court found the absence of any such process fatal to the order.

The second was substantive: the very fact that the complainant alleged to be a disqualifying circumstance — namely, that the petitioner's father was in government service at the time of the mother's death — was already on record before appointment was made. The recommendation letter dated 29 March 2012 from respondent No. 6 had explicitly disclosed that the father was a retired government servant. This meant that when respondent No. 4 issued the appointment letter in September 2013, the department was fully aware of the father's employment history. There was, in the court's view, no concealment on the part of the petitioner.

The court drew on a co-ordinate Bench's ruling in Shiv Kumar v. State of U.P. and Others, 2025 (8) ADJ 11, where an analogous situation arose: a petitioner had been given compassionate appointment even though his mother was in government service at the time of his father's death. The Bench had held in paragraph 41 of that judgment that “it was incumbent upon the respondent authorities to undertake due diligence and conduct a proper verification of such material facts prior to extending the appointment.” Because verification had been carried out before appointment, the benefit could not later be cancelled by blaming the appointee for lapses attributable to the authorities themselves. That judgment survived challenge: a special appeal was dismissed on 22 September 2025, and a Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No. 72666 of 2025 was dismissed by the Supreme Court on 13 March 2026.

Justice Padia also relied on the Supreme Court's ruling in Md. Zamil Ahmed v. State of Bihar, 2016 (12) SCC 342. The Supreme Court had there held that even if an appointment was contrary to policy, the State, by its own conduct over a long passage of time, condoned its lapse and could not wake up years later to terminate the appointee, particularly where the appointee had not made any false declaration or suppressed material facts. The court in the present case reproduced paragraphs 15 and 16 of that judgment, in which the Supreme Court observed that “the State was, therefore, not entitled to take advantage of their own mistake.”

Two further Allahabad High Court decisions reinforced the position. In Smt. Sugandha Upadhyay v. State of U.P. and Others (Writ-A No. 4597 of 2024), a co-ordinate Bench found it too late to cancel an appointment made ten years earlier on the basis of a rule prohibition where the appointee was a teenager at the time of application. The State's special appeal was dismissed on 24 January 2025, and the Supreme Court dismissed the SLP on 28 March 2025. In Vishwaroop v. State of U.P. and Others (Writ-A No. 2058 of 2024, decided 15 October 2024), the Lucknow Bench of this court held there was no justification for the State to discover an infirmity in an appointment after twelve years when there was no allegation that the petitioner had concealed any material fact. That judgment also survived through special appeal and SLP.

Outcome

Justice Padia allowed the writ petition and quashed the order dated 11 August 2025 passed by the District Basic Education Officer, Azamgarh.

A mandamus was issued directing respondent No. 4 (District Basic Education Officer, Azamgarh) and respondent No. 6 (Block Education Officer, Urban Area, Azamgarh) to reinstate the petitioner on the post of Senior Clerk in the office of respondent No. 6. The court further directed that back wages and all other service benefits be paid to the petitioner within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order. No order was made as to costs.