Remanded

Suneel Kumar v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC6 Mar 2019WRIA/1594/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Court allowed the interim nature of the claim, noting that posts requiring Commission recruitment are excluded from 1974 Rules. It set aside the impugned order denying appointment and remitted the matter to the third respondent to reevaluate eligibility for a suitable post reflecting the petitioner's qualifications.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; impugned order set aside; claim for compassionate appointment to be reevaluated for a suitable post by the third respondent within three months.

Suneel Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2019)

¶1

Court No. - 6

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1594 of 2019

¶3

Petitioner :- Suneel Kumar Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rahul Agarwal,Rakesh Kumar Mishra

¶4

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Yashwant Varma,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri S.C. Upadhyay learned Brief Holder for the State respondents.

¶7

Although time had been granted to the State to file a counter affidavit, no affidavit has been filed. Bearing in mind the nature of issues which are raised, parties have consented for disposal of the writ petition at this stage and without exchange of affidavits.

¶8

This petition impugns an order dated 16 January 2019 in terms of which the respondents have communicated their decision to negative the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds. The order reveals that the respondents had offered compassionate appointment to the petitioner on the post of Safai Karmi whereas he had claimed that bearing in mind his qualifications he should be considered for appointment on the post of Village Development Officer.

¶9

Before this Court it is not disputed by parties that posts which are liable to be filled either through the Public Service Commission or the Commission constituted by the State stand excluded from the purview of the 1974 Rules. Undisputedly the post of Village Development Officer is liable to be filled pursuant to a recruitment exercise initiated by the Commission. In view thereof, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner's case for appointment on compassionate grounds may be considered on any other suitable

¶10

post bearing in mind the fact that he is a graduate.

¶11

The expression 'suitable' as employed in Rule 5 fell for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal Defective No. 620 of 2018 ( Smt. Premlata Vs. State of U.P. And 3 Others) . Dealing with the ambit of the provisions embodied in Rule 5, the Division Bench proceeded to observe as follows:-

¶12

"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 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.

¶13

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."

¶14

This exposition on the ambit of Rule 5 is not disputed by Sri Upadhyay on fundamental legal principles. He therefore, submits that the ends of justice would merit the matter being remitted to the third respondent for reconsideration of the claim of the petitioner on any other suitable post bearing in mind the qualifications that he possesses.

¶15

Accordingly, this writ petition shall stand disposed of in light of the statement made on behalf of the State respondents with the further observation that the claim of the petitioner for

¶16

appointment on compassionate grounds shall be reevaluated by the third respondent in accordance with law and bearing in mind the principles as laid down in Smt . Premlata referred to above. The exercise of consideration shall be concluded with expedition and preferably within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order.

¶17

The order impugned in this petition consequently stands set aside.

¶18

The writ petition stands d isposed of on the above terms. Order Date :- 6.3.2019 faraz

Suneel Kumar v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suneel Kumar v. State of U.P. and 2 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

Amresh Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. and Another

Sanjeev Kumar Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Smt. Sushila Devi and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pratibha Dubey Vs State of U.P.

Sachin Kumar and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Indrapal Singh Vs State of U P and 2 Others