Dismissed

Arvind Kumar v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Allahabad HC12 Sept 2018SPLAD/603/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed an appeal against the rejection of an application for compassionate ground appointment. The court held that despite the father being alive and in employment, the applicant is not a valid dependant under the Rules of 1974 if his father is alive, though it ignored the bar of limitation for merits.

What did the court decide?

Application for compassionate appointment was rejected as the appellant's father is alive and in service.

Arvind Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 603 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Arvind Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors Counsel for Appellant :- Vivek Mishra,Vikas Budhwar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Pranesh Dutt Tripathi,Vikram Bahadur Singh

¶4

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

¶5

This appeal is barred by limitation from 132 days. Ignoring the delay, we have examined merits of the case.

¶6

This appeal is before us to examine correctness of the order dated 29th March, 2018 passed by learned Single Bench in Writ-A No. 8693 of 2018.

¶7

In brief facts of the case are that the appellant-petitioner moved an application to have appointment on compassionate grounds as per provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules of 1974") being a member of "family"of late Sri Govind Kumar, brother of the appellantpetitioner. The claim of the appellant-petitioner was rejected on the count that his father is alive and is also in service. Aggrieved by the same, appellant-petitioner preferred a petition for writ that came to be dismissed under the order dated 29th March, 2018 by arriving at the conclusion that the appellant-petitioner cannot be treated as a dependant on his brother as his father is alive.

¶8

The argument advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the appellant is that under Rule 5 of the Rules of 1974, the concession for appointment on compassionate grounds is given to a member of "family" of the deceased Government Servant. The term "family" is defined under Rule 2 (c) of the Rules of 1974 and an un-married brother

¶9

is a part of "family", thus, the appellant-petitioner is entitled for appointment, and the presence of father of the appellant-petitioner is absolutely irrelevant.

¶10

Having considered facts of the case, we do not find any merit in this appeal.

¶11

As already stated, the father of the appellant-petitioner is also in service. Under the Rules of 1974, there is a specific bar for appointment on compassionate grounds if the relatives of a deceased Government Servant is already in employment. Admittedly, father of the appellantpetitioner is a member of family and he is also in service, therefore, in no case appointment could have been given to the appellant-petitioner on compassionate grounds.

¶12

No interference, as such, is warranted with the order passed by learned Single Bench.

¶13

The appeal is dismissed.

¶14

Order Date :- 12.9.2018 Rameez

¶15

(Chandra Dhari Singh,J.) (Govind Mathur,J.)

Arvind Kumar v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arvind Kumar v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

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

Pushpendra Singh and Another Vs District Judge, Firozabad and Another

State of U.P. and 2 Others Vs Hari Narayan Lal and Another

Vijay Pal Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Smt. Rashmi Upadhyay Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Smt. Kalyani Mishra Vs the Chairman/ Managing Director of Central Bank of India and 3 Ors.

Balendra Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.