Court quashed order rejecting petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment for her mother. Held that father's Section 70 appointment was temporary while mother's was permanent, and another employee received benefit; remitted for fresh consideration.
Order dated 06.11.2015 quashed; matter remitted to respondent No.3 to consider claim afresh.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 28
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 36754 of 2016
Petitioner :- Neetu Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Pawan Kumar Mishra Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Nagendra Nath Mishra
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Heard Shri Rajesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for respondent No.1 and Shri N.N. Mishra, learned counsel for respondent Nos. 2 and 3.
Present petition has been filed assailing the order dated 06.11.2015 passed by respondent No.3. Petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment in dying in harness after her mother Smt. Saroj died on 16.08.2014. Services of late Saroj was regularized by the order of respondent No.3, which is appended as Annexure No.1 at page 14.
Claim of the petitioner has been rejected by respondent No.3, solely on the ground that her father is also working on the post of Sweeper in the Nagar Nigam and his appointment has been made under Section 70 of the U.P. Municipalities Act. It is stated in para 7 of the writ petition that one Ajay Kumar was given compassionate appointment after his mother died in harness on 24.05.2007, while his father was appointed under Section 70 as a Sweeper in the Nagar Nigam.
In the counter affidavit filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3, the said fact has not been denied and is said to be matter of record.
Contention of counsel for petitioner is that appointment made under Section 70 is temporary in nature and it is the Chairman, who exercising his power makes an appointment. While mother of petitioner was appointed on a permanent post and her services were regularized, it is further contended that the order passed by respondent No.3 is very cryptic in nature and does not take note of the said fact and his representation has been rejected on frivolous ground.
Shri N.N. Mishra, counsel for the Nigam submitted that he was not aware of the fact that whether Ajay Kumar was appointed in place of his mother, while his father was in service of the Nigam. He further submitted that petitioner has no locus and the authorities had rightly rejected the claim of petitioner.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that appointment of father of petitioner under Section 70 is a temporary in nature and that to made by the Chairman of Nagar Nigam, earlier called as Nagar Mahapalika, while the petitioner is claiming compassionate appointment on the post of her mother, who was a regular employee and her services were regularized by the Nagar Nigam. Further, the answering respondent had not denied the benefit granted to another employee namely Ajay Kumar.
In view of the above, order passed by the respondent No.3 dated 06.11.2015 is quashed and the matter is remitted to the respondent No.3 to consider the claim of petitioner afresh in light of the observations made as above.
The writ petition stands partly allowed .
Order Date :- 3.4.2019 A.N. Mishra
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an order rejecting compassionate appointment claim can be quashed where the father's appointment under Section 70 is temporary and another employee was granted benefit despite similar circumst
Whether the authority had locus to consider the factual distinction between permanent regularization and temporary appointment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
NoneReferred
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Neetu
State Of U.P.
Ors.
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
