Dismissed

Ajay Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Allahabad HC1 Oct 2018SPLAD/717/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Special appeal dismissed holding that compassionate appointment requires proof of dependency at the time of application. The court found no such dependency existed years after the brother's death, barring the appellant's claim under the 1974 Rules despite later qualification clarifications.

What did the court decide?

The special appeal was dismissed as it was found to be devoid of merit as no dependency existed to justify compassionate appointment.

Ajay Pratap Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 21

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 717 of 2018

¶3

Appellant :- Ajay Pratap Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors Counsel for Appellant :- Prabhakar Awasthi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ved Byas Mishra

¶4

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

¶5

This appeal is barred by limitation from 108 days. Ignoring the same, we have examined merits of the case.

¶6

This appeal is before us to examine correctness of the order dated 7th May, 2018 passed by learned Single Bench in Writ- A No. 11296 of 2018.

¶7

The basic facts of the case are that elder brother of the appellant-petitioner died while in service in the year 2010. An other brother of him submitted 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"). The application aforesaid, came to be rejected on 5th September, 2014.

¶8

On 18th September, 2017, the Joint Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Department of Sanskrit Shiksha clarified that the person having qualifications from the institutions affiliated with Uttar Pradesh College and Secondary School Education Council shall be entitled to be considered for appointment under the Rules of 1974. The present appellant-petitioner then submitted an application to have appointment on compassionate grounds by claiming himself to be a dependant of his elder brother. The claim of the appellant-petitioner was denied by the respondents, hence he approached this Court by way of filing a petition for writ. The petition for

¶9

writ came to be dismissed under an order dated 7th May, 2018 by holding that the order dated 5th September, 2014 attained finality and that is not open to be revived as a consequence to the order dated 18th September, 2017. Aggrieved by the same, instant appeal is preferred.

¶10

The argument advanced by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant is that, as a matter of fact, the appellant-petitioner became eligible to be considered for appointment only in pursuance to the Government Order dated 18th September, 2017 and, therefore, he had occasion to submit the application for appointment subsequent thereto only, as such, the order dated 5th September, 2014 is having not an impediment in considering his case for appointment.

¶11

We do not find any merit in the argument advanced. It is not in dispute that the appellant-petitioner is claiming appointment on compassionate grounds by declaring himself as a dependant of his elder brother, who died in the year 2010. The appellant-petitioner, if was in need of an appointment due to harness then he should have applied immediately after death of his elder brother or at least on rejection of the claim of his other elder brother vide order dated 5th September, 2014. The submission of the application for appointment on compassionate grounds in the present set of facts clearly indicates that no harness that demands appointments on compassionate grounds was existing. It is well settled that appointments on compassionate grounds are a deviation from the general principle of equality looking to the harness suffered by dependants of deceased Government Servant. If such harness does not exist then the need to deviate from general principle expires and

¶12

that is a reason sufficient to deny such appointments. In the case in hand, as already stated, no harness exists to invoke the powers under the Rules of 1974.

¶13

The appeal, as such, is having no merit, hence is dismissed.

¶14

Order Date :- 1.10.2018 Rameez

¶15

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

Ajay Pratap Singh v. State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Pratap Singh 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

Afsrun Vs Union of India and Another

Manju Chaudhari Vs State of U.P. and 5 Ors.

Ashok Kumar and Another Vs Dios and Others

Sushil Kumar Pathak Vs the Housing Commissioner U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad and Another

Mahendra Kumar Kasushik and 32 Ors. Vs State of U.P. and 2 Ors.

Sanjay Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Ors.