Dismissed

Vikram Singh v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Allahabad HC9 Aug 2018SPLA/719/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of an application for compassionate appointment due to delay. This appeal dismissing that dismissal, held that the delay was not excusable as other family members were eligible and the true motive was to secure employment for an adult male.

What did the court decide?

The special appeal is dismissed as the claim for compassionate appointment was correctly rejected due to unreasonable delay and lack of genuine necessity.

Vikram Singh Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 719 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Vikram Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Sushil Kumar Pandey,Surendra Kumar Chaubey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Govind Mathur,J. Hon'ble Chandra Dhari Singh,J.

¶5

This appeal is before us to examine correctness of order dated 19.07.2018 passed by learned single Judge in Writ - A No. 12871 of 2018.

¶6

By the judgment impugned learned single Bench dismissed the petition for writ by arriving at the conclusion that the respondents had not committed any wrong in refusing to condone the delay in making application for grant of compassionate appointment.

¶7

In brief factual matrix of the case is that the ward of a government servant, who died on 06.06.2007, appellantpetitioner submitted an application for appointment on compassionate ground as per provisions of U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants (Dying in Harness) Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules of 1974'), in the year 2013. The application being barred by limitation prescribed under Rule 5 of the Rules of 1974, was rejected by the competent authority. Being aggrieved by the same, appellant-petitioner preferred petition for writ, that came to be dismissed under the judgment impugned.

¶8

Learned single Bench while relying upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in Shiv Kumar Dubey Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2014 (2) ADJ 312 , held that at the time of death of the government servant his eldest daughter was of 15 years of age and she would have applied for appointment on compassionate grounds within the limitation prescribed under Rule 5 of the Rules of 1974. Learned single Bench further noticed that sole anxiety of ward family to secure employment for son only and that reflects that the appellant-petitioner and his family was just to fetch employment and not to have the same to meet the harness.

¶9

In appeal, argument advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant-petitioner is that as per Rules of 1974 an appointment should have been accorded on compassionate grounds but in the instant matter the same has been denied without adequate application of mind. It is asserted that at the time of death of government servant appellant-petitioner was minor, his mother being illiterate was not in a position to get the appointment, the

¶10

appellant-petitioner applied for appointment only on attaining the age of majority.

¶11

On going through the record, we do not find any merit in the argument advanced. At the threshold, we would like to state that the appointment on compassionate grounds are nothing but a concession given while making appointments to the family of a deceased government servant, that suffered harness due to untimely death of sole bread earner. The deviation from the Rule is equality in public employment, which is permissible only to meet out the harness and otherwise it cannot be treated as an alternative mode of appointment. In the case in hand, the government servant died in the month of June, 2007 and admittedly, his wife was eligible to be employed on compassionate grounds as Rule 8 of the Rules of 1974 takes necessary care for grant of relaxation even in educational eligibility.

¶12

It is also pertinent to notice that eldest daughter of the deceased government servant at the relevant time was 15 years of age and she too acquired majority for appointment on compassionate grounds within the limitation prescribed under Rule 5 of the Rules of 1974 for submitting application for appointment on compassionate grounds. The family of the appellant-petitioner instead of getting appointments on compassionate grounds to meet the harness just waited to get the present appellant-petitioner major. This conduct clearly indicates that the appellant-petitioner or his family was not in the need of compassionate appointment to meet the harness but only to ensure appointment for a male member of the family.

¶13

In view of whatever stated above, we are of the considered opinion that the learned single Bench has rightly dismissed the claim of the appellant-petitioner.

¶14

So far as judgment of Full Bench of this Court as cited by learned single Bench is concerned, that is of no help to the appellant-petitioner as lays down the eventualities wherein the appointments were given or denied to an aspirant under Rules of 1974. As a matter of fact, the law laid down in the case aforesaid, substantiates the strength of the respondents. The appeal being bereft of merit is dismissed .

¶15

Order Date :- 9.8.2018 Prajapati

¶16

[Chandra Dhari Singh, J] [Govind Mathur, J]

Vikram Singh v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vikram Singh v. State of U.P. and 5 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chitra Sachan Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

State of U.P. and 2 Ors. Vs Nar Singh Mall

Director of Education(Intermediate) and 2 Ors. Vs Chandra Prakash Vishnoi

Kamlesh Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Arvind Singh and 7 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Akash Bashiyan Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.