Allowed

U.P. State Food and Essential Commodities Corporation Ltd. v. Shubham Saxena and Another

Allahabad HC20 Apr 2018SPLAD/220/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The special appeal against a direction for immediate compassionate appointment is allowed. The High Court modified the order, directing the appellant to consider the case expeditiously within two months, noting that the original reason for rejection must be ignored.

What did the court decide?

The order directing immediate appointment was modified to direct the appellant to consider the case expeditiously within two months.

U.P. State Food and Essential Commodities… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

1/4

¶2

Court No. - 39

¶3

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 220 of 2018

¶4

Appellant :- U.P. State Food And Essential Commodities Corporation Ltd.

¶5

Respondent :- Shubham Saxena And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Shri Kant Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rajesh Mishra

¶6

Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J. Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

¶7

This Special Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 25 January 2018 passed by a learned Judge of this Court by which a direction has been issued to the appellant to grant compassionate appointment to the writ petitioner on any suitable post within a period of six weeks from the date of the judgment.

¶8

The writ petitioner had moved an application in 2013 for grant of compassionate appointment, as his father had died in harness on 5 December, 2006, while he was working on the post of Seasonal Marketing Inspector. It was stated in the writ petition that at the time of the death of his father, the writ petitioner was a minor and it is only when he attained majority that the application was filed in 2013 to seek compassionate appointment.

¶9

The claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment was rejected by order dated 7 September 2013 by the Managing Director of the Corporation for the reason that the father of the writ petitioner was engaged as a Seasonal Haat Inspector and compassionate appointment could not be granted to the family members on the death of such an employee.

¶10

The learned Judge did not accept this contention and held that since other persons who had also working as seasonal employees had been

¶11

2/4

¶12

granted compassionate appointment, there was no reason why the Corporation should not grant compassionate appointment to the writ petitioners. However, instead of issuing a direction to the respondents to examine and pass an appropriate order on the application filed by the writ petitioner, the learned Judge directed that the appellant should grant compassionate appointment.

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the application for grant of compassionate appointment was filed with inordinate delay and that a minor does not have a vested right to seek compassionate appointment on attaining majority. It is, therefore, his contention that instead of directing the appointment to be made on compassionate grounds, the learned Judge should have directed the appellant to consider the case of the writ petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment.

¶14

Learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner who is respondent No.1 in this Special Appeal has, however, contended that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Judge was justified in issuing a positive direction for grant of compassionate appointment as the case set up by the appellant in the impugned order was found to be false and no ground was taken about delay in moving the application for grant of compassionate appointment.

¶15

We have considered the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

It is not in dispute that the father of the writ petitioner died in harness on 5 December 2006 and that the application for grant of compassionate appointment was moved by the writ petitioner after 7 years in 2013. The appellant was denied compassionate appointment by the order dated 7 September 2013 for the reason that compassionate appointment was not required to be given to such persons whose family

¶17

3/4

¶18

members died in harness while working as seasonal employees. In such a situation, the appellant was not required to examine whether there was any delay on the part of the writ petitioner in moving the application for compassionate appointment. Now that the reason given by the appellant for denying compassionate appointment has not found favour of the Court, the appellant has to examine whether the application was moved within time contemplated under the relevant rules. In this view of the matter, the learned Judge was not justified in issuing a positive direction to the appellant to grant appointment to the writ petitioner on compassionate grounds.

¶19

We, accordinlgy, modify the order dated 25 January 2018 and direct that the case of the writ petitioner for grant compassionate appointment shall now be considered by the appellant in accordance with law expeditiously and preferably within a period of two months from today.

¶20

The Special Appeal is, accordingly, allowed.

¶21

Order Date :- 20.4.2018 Junaid

(Dilip Gupta,J.)

(Neeraj Tiwari,J.)

4/4

Court No. - 39

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 220 of 2018

¶27

Appellant :- U.P. State Food And Essential Commodities Corporation Ltd. Respondent :- Shubham Saxena And Another Counsel for Appellant :- Shri Kant Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Rajesh Mishra

¶28

Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J. Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.

¶29

Civil Misc. Delay Condonation Application No.1 of 2018

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶31

In view of the averments made in the affidavit filed in support of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, we are satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the Special Appeal within the period of limitation.

¶32

The application is, accordingly, allowed and the delay in filing the Special Appeal is condoned. Order Date :- 20.4.2018 Junaid

¶33

(Dilip Gupta,J.)

¶34

(Neeraj Tiwari,J.)

U.P. State Food and Essential Commodities Corporation Ltd. v. Shubham Saxena and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

U.P. State Food and Essential Commodities Corporation Ltd. v. Shubham Saxena and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manish Majumdar Vs Cantonment Board Office and 8 Others

Pushpendra Kumar AND13 Others Vs Staff Selection Commission and 2 Others

M/S S.K. Contracts Pvt. Ltd. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

chandra wati Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Bhure Lal Vs U.P. Secondary Education Service Commission and 4 Others

Mohammad Idris Vs State of U.P. and Another