Dismissed

Suresh Kumar Vishwakarma v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC30 Nov 2021SPLA/284/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this special appeal, the High Court dismissed the appellant's challenge against the Single Judge's order denying compassionate appointment. The Court found the father was not a permanent State employee and no proper application with dispatch proof was submitted.

What did the court decide?

Special appeal dismissed; the impugned order of the Single Judge dated 08.09.2021 was upheld.

Suresh Kumar Vishwakarma Vs State of U.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2021)

¶1

Court No. - 3

¶2

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 284 of 2021

¶3

Appellant :- Suresh Kumar Vishwakarma Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Rajeev Ratan Shukla,Mohd.Aslam Azhar Khan Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Ajay Singh

¶4

Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J. Hon'ble Syed Aftab Husain Rizvi,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondent.

¶6

There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner's father was an employee of the respondent no.2. That apart, there is no material on record to show that the petitioner moved any application for compassionate appointment before the respondent no.2 and was received by the respondent no.2. The application filed as Annexure No.5 does not bear any dispatch number and acknowledgement. There is also nothing on record to show that the alleged application dated 13.03.2014 was submitted by the petitioner by a registered post or by any other mode.

¶7

There is no disclosure by the petitioner-appellant regarding financial status and financial resources of the family, except the alleged application dated 13.03.2014. There is nothing on record to show that the petitioner ever moved any application for compassionate appointment before the respondent no.2 and he was denied the compassionate appointment. The petitioner directly filed a writ petition in the year 2017 which was dismissed by the impugned order dated 08.09.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge, following the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of ( Shiv Kumar Dubey vs. State of U.P. and ors) 2014 (2) ADJ 312.

¶8

Learned Standing Counsel has stated on instructions that father of the petitioner was neither appointed as a regular employee nor he was a permanent employee of the respondent no.2 institution. He was engaged as Class-IV employee under a particular project financed by its own internal arrangement by the respondent no.2 and the wages/ salary of the petitioner's father was never paid from the State exchequer. Thus the petitioner is not entitled for appointment under the dying-inharness Rules, 1974.

¶9

Instructions of the Director Technical Education, U.P., Lucknow dated 29.11.2021 as produced by the learned Standing Counsel is kept on record.

¶10

For all the reasons aforestated, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The special Appeal is devoid of merit and, therefore, it is dismissed.

¶11

Order Date :- 30.11.2021 C. MANI

Suresh Kumar Vishwakarma v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Kumar Vishwakarma v. State of U.P. and Another

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

Ashok Kumar Vs Ramveer Yadav and 3 Others

Ashutosh Chaudhary Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Name Singh Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Rajendra Kumar Arya Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

State of U.P. and 5 Others Vs Smt Umarani

Rajeev Agarwal (Huf) Vs Union of India and 2 Others