Allowed

Smt. Premlata v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC14 Sept 2018SPLAD/620/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Special Appeal was allowed after condoning delay. The Court set aside the Single Bench judgment, holding that appointment under compassionate grounds must be based on the widow's qualifications, not the deceased husband's cadre.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; petition for writ allowed; respondents directed to consider candidature for Grade-III service.

Smt. Premlata Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

¶2

Court No. - 21

¶3

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 620 of 2018

¶4

Appellant :- Smt. Premlata Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Kailash Prakash Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

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

¶6

This appeal is barred by limitation from 12 days.

¶7

Having considered the facts stated in the application seeking condonation of delay, we are satisfied that the appellant had justifiable reason to state that for a bonafide reason, he was prevented from filing the appeal in time, accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶8

Sri Avinash Kumar, husband of the appellant-petitioner, while working as Messenger in Police Radio Department of Uttar Pradesh, died on 7th November, 2014. The appellant-petitioner, being widow of deceased Government Servant, submitted an application as per Rule 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as "Rules of 1974") to have appointment on suitable post on compassionate grounds. Along with the application, she submitted necessary documents including a copy of the Bachelors Degree in Arts and Bachelors Degree in Education. The Senior Superintendent of Police under a communication dated 4th April, 2016 informed the appellant-petitioner that being not possessing the qualification of I.T.I. it would be appropriate to apply for some other post instead to the post of Workshop Hand. The appellant-petitioner accordingly submitted an application for appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector. The respondents instead of giving appointment to the appellant-

¶9

¶10

petitioner as Sub-Inspector offered an appointment on the post of Messenger. Being aggrieved by the same, she preferred a petition for writ that came to be dismissed by learned Single Bench under the judgment impugned. Learned Single Bench while dismissing the petition for writ held that husband of the appellant-petitioner was a Class-IV employee and an offer has been made for appointment to Class-IV post, as such, there is no illegality in the matter. Learned Single Bench also observed that the appointments on compassionate grounds cannot be claimed as a matter of right, in as much as, it is merely an exception to the recruitment rules to meet the difficulties created on account of sudden death of the sole bread earner.

¶11

In appeal, the argument advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant is that the appointments under the Rules of 1974 are required to be given on a suitable post, meaning thereby the appointment should be given on a post commensurating to the qualification possessed by the ward of deceased Government Servant. It is asserted that the post held by the deceased Government Servant is not a fact relevant for providing appointment under Rule 5 of the Rules of 1974.

¶12

Per-contra, learned Standing Counsel submits that in the Police Radio Department the appellant-petitioner could have been employed on a technical post for which the qualification of I.T.I. is a prerequisite and the appellant-petitioner is not possessing the same and, therefore, appointment was offered to her as Class-IV employee.

¶13

Heard learned counsels and considered the rival submissions.

¶14

At the threshold, we would like to state that though the appointments on compassionate grounds are deviation from the normal procedure and that has been introduced to extend a helping hand to the wards of an employee who dies while in service and, as

¶15

¶16

such, the same is given to meet the emergent harness arose due to death of sole bread earner. While giving such appointments the employee concerned is required to adhere the applicable Rules. In the case in hand, the Rules of 1974 were made by the Government of Uttar Pradesh invoking the powers under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. Rule 5 of the Rules of 1974 provides that in case the Government Servant dies in harness after the commencement of the Rules and the spouse of the deceased Government Servant is not already employed under Central Government or a State Government or a Corporation owned and controlled by the Central Government or a State Government, one member of his family, who is not already employed shall, on making an application for the purpose, be given suitable employment in Government service, on a post except the post which is within the purview of U.P. Public Service Commission.

¶17

A bare perusal of Rule 5 of the Rules of 1974 makes it crystal clear that appointment under Rule 5 aforesaid is required to be given on a suitable post. The term 'suitable' in Rule 5 aforesaid pertains to suitability of the person who desires for appointment and it has nothing to do with the post held by the deceased Government Servant. The suitability of the aspirant is required to be assessed on basis of the educational qualification and other eligibilities so possessed by such person. In the case in hand, the appellant-petitioner is having the qualification of Bachelors Degree in Arts as well as Bachelors Degree in Education.

¶18

Looking to the qualification aforesaid, appellant-petitioner is suitable to be employed on a post in Grade-III and there is no just and valid reason for not employing her in the grade aforesaid. Suffice to mention that it is not the case of the appellant-petitioner that no ClassIII post is available in the entire Department of Police of Uttar

¶19

¶20

Pradesh.

¶21

In view of it, we are of considered opinion that learned Single Bench erred while rejecting the writ petition on the count that the husband of the appellant-petitioner was working in Class-IV cadre and, therefore, appointment in Class-IV cadre is justified.

¶22

In view of whatever stated above, the appeal deserves acceptance, hence is allowed. The order impugned dated 31st July, 2018 passed by learned Single Bench is set aside. The petition for writ is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider candidature of the appellant-petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds in Grade-III service and same be accorded to her if she otherwise does not suffer any ineligibility.

¶23

No order to cost.

¶24

Order Date :- 14.9.2018 Rameez

¶25

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

Smt. Premlata v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Premlata v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Praveen Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 5 Ors.

Pankaj Shukla Vs State of U.P. and Another

Daya Shankar Tiwari Vs Dist. Inspector of Schools and 2 Ors.

Dharmendra Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.

Rakesh Kumar Ram Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.