Dismissed

Harshit Prakash v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC23 Aug 2022WRIA/12181/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition sought quashing of orders rejecting compassionate appointment and for mandamus for appointment. The High Court held that under Rule 5 of the 1974 Rules, benefits are restricted where the spouse of the deceased government servant was also in service, and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The prayer for quashing of impugned orders and for compassionate appointment was dismissed as the petitioner was not eligible under the Rules.

Harshit Prakash Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

AFR

¶2

Court No. - 32

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 12181 of 2022 Petitioner :- Harshit Prakash Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jitendra Kumar Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for respondent no. 1 to 4.

¶6

Through this petition the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:-

¶7

"a) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 17.10.2016 (Annexure - '1' to this writ petition) passed by the respondent no.2 as well as impugned order dated 21.10.2016 and 13.06.2022 (Annexure - '2' & '3' respectively to this writ petition) passed by the respondent no.3.

¶8

b) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner in the respondent department, forthwith."

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the mother of the petitioner who was a government servant and was serving as Mukhya Sevika in the office of Child Development Project Kanpur (Pratham), Kanpur Nagar has died on 20.02.2016 while she was in service. The petitioner being the elder son along with two sisters in the family submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 03.05.2016 along with requisite documents. The Director Child Development, Nursing and Nutrition, U.P. Lucknow rejected the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment vide impugned order dated 17.10.2016 and by a consequent order, the District Program Officer Kanpur has also issued impugned order dated 21.10.2016. Thereafter he gave a representation before the authorities that was also rejected vide order dated 13.06.2022 by the District Program Officer, Kanpur.

¶10

Learned Standing Counsel has opposed the petition submitting that both the parents of the petitioner were in government service. The mother Munni Devi @ Munni Kushwaha who was working as Mukhya Sevika in the office of Child Development Project Kanpur (Pratham), Kanpur Nagar died in the year 2016, however, Shri Umesh Kumar who is the father of the petitioner was working in the State Secretariat, therefore, the authorities found that since the father of the petitioner who is the bread earner of the family was still employed with the State

¶11

Government, there is no occasion for giving the benefit of compassionate appointment to the petitioner.

¶12

The compassionate appointment to the dependents of the deceased, government servant is provided under Rule-5 of The U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred as 1974 Rules) which are extracted below:-

¶13

"5. Recruitment of a member of the family of the deceased. - (1) In case a Government servant dies in harness after the commencement of these rules and the spouse of the deceased Government servant is not already employed under the Central Government or a State Government or a Corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government or a State Government, one member of his family who is not already employed under the Central Government or a State Government or a Corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government or a State Government shall, on making an application for the purposes, be given a suitable employment in Government service on a post except the post which is within the purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, in relaxation of the normal recruitment rules, if such person-

¶14

(i) fulfils the educational qualifications prescribed for the post,

¶15

(ii) is otherwise qualified for Government service, and

¶16

(iii) makes the application for employment within five years from the date of the death of the Government servant:

¶17

Provided that where the State Government is satisfied that the time limit fixed for making the application for employment causes undue hardship in any particular case, it may dispense with or relax the requirement as it may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner. (2) As far as possible, such an employment should be given in the same department in which the deceased Government servant was employed prior to his death."

¶18

Perusal of Rule 5 of 1974 Rules shows that in case the death of the government servant during service after the commencement of the rules and the spouse of the deceased government servant is not already employed under the Central Government or the State Government etc. then on making an application by the dependent of the deceased government servant for the purpose of giving suitable appointment in government service he can be appointed on compassionate ground. The very language of Rule 5 of 1974 Rules is explicitly clear that it shall apply only in those cases where the government servant dies in harness and his/her spouse is not already employed with the government, only in that case the application for compassionate appointment shall be considered.

¶19

It is admitted case of the petitioner that his father was working with the State Government at the time of death of his mother

¶20

who was already a government servant, therefore, in view of the clear statutory provision of Rule-5 of 1974 Rules, the petitioner is not entitled for being considered on compassionate grounds and therefore his candidature has rightly been rejected by the impugned order.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage has drawn attention of the Court towards government order dated 17.06.2014 which is on record at page no. 32 of the petition and has submitted that the appointment under the Rules 5 of 1974 Rules cannot be refused merely on the ground that financial status of the applicant is sound.

¶22

Perusal of the impugned order dated 17.10.2016 shows that the candidature of the petitioner has not been rejected on the ground of his sound financial status rather has been rejected as the other spouse i.e. father of the petitioner was in government service at the time of death of the deceased (mother of the petitioner) who was also in government service and thus, the authority has rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that since the other spouse of the deceased was already in government service at the time of death of the mother of the petitioner, therefore, as per Rule - 5 of 1974 Rules, there was no occasion for providing compassionate appointment to the petitioner.

¶23

The petition being devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed.

¶24

Order Date :- 23.8.2022/RC

¶25

Digitally signed by RAM CHANDER YADAV Date: 2022.08.24 09:36:32 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Harshit Prakash v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harshit Prakash 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

Sanjay Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shubham Mishra Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

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

Dharmendra Kumar Singh Vs Director of Education(Secondary) and 2 Others

Smt.Nirmala Devi and Another Vs the Union of India and 3 Others

Mamta Kumari Vs State of U.P. and 6 Others