Dismissed

Satyam Kumar Gaud v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC6 Dec 2022WRIA/20212/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking compassionate appointment for the petitioner, whose mother died in 2017. The Court held that the petitioner's five-year delay, alive status of the dependent father, and incompetent issuance of a No Objection Certificate barred relief.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as it lacked merit due to laches and surviving father.

Satyam Kumar Gaud Vs State of U.P. and 3… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 36

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 20212 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Satyam Kumar Gaud Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Yadav,Awadhesh Tiwari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Virendra Kumar Pal learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

¶6

Petitioner seeks compassionate appointment occasioned by sudden death of his mother on 11.8.2017 while she was working as Principal at Maharshi Dayanand Saraswati Sanskrit Uchhtar Madhyamik Shikshan Sansthan, Kauwa Kadsar, Bachhapar, Ballia. On that date, as per disclosure made by the petitioner, he was about 18 years of age. On 17.10.2017, the petitioner appears to have moved an application for grant of compassionate appointment. It is that application that the petitioner now wants to be decided. He would submit, at present he has acquired qualification to be appointed Assistant Teacher. In any case, petitioner is willing to be appointed on a Class-IV post, as per the qualification that he may have possessed in the year 2017. He further places reliance on the No Objection Certificate issued by his father Sri Rajendra Prasad Dixit and sister Ms. Shweta (unmarried daughter). As to the status of his father, it has been stated, he is unemployed and was dependent on the salary of his wife.

¶7

Perusal of the affidavit submitted by the petitioner in support of the application for grant of compassionate appointment reveals, same is a joint affidavit of his father and sister. Petitioner's father has only disclosed his No Objection to grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioner. It is admitted

¶8

position on record that the petitioner is seeking to pursue his application for grant of compassionate appointment dated 11.8.2017, more than five years after filing of that application. To a specific query, learned counsel for the petitioner states, though the petitioner did not file any earlier writ petition seeking early disposal of his pending application, he had regularly pursued his application before the authorities by filing repeated representations.

¶9

Repeated representations cannot give rise to continued cause of action. Laches that operate against the petitioner for reason of having not pursued his legal remedy to seek early decision on the application for grant of compassionate appointment cannot be overlooked.

¶10

Grant of compassionate appointment is neither a separate mode of recruitment nor a separate cadre to be created in any service. It is an exception to the general rule of equality. Exceptional circumstance must therefore always exist to allow the writ Court to exercise its extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction in these matters.

¶11

Petitioner having slept over his rights for a long period of five years, in the first place, no ground exists to overlook the laches and issue the writ of mandamus at this late stage. Second, petitioner's father is alive. Neither by means of the affidavit in support of the present petition nor by means of the affidavit submitted before the authorities, it has been shown in any credible or reliable manner that the said Rajendra Prasad Dixit was wholly unemployed and dependent on the salary paid out to his wife or that he was not eligible to seek compassionate appointment himself at the time of occurrence of the death of petitioner's mother.

¶12

Reliance placed on the letter of the Principal of the institution is

¶13

misplaced as that authority is not competent to issue such certificates.

¶14

In such uncertain facts, writ of mandamus, as prayed, is declined. Writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed .

¶15

Order Date :- 6.12.2022 Faraz

¶16

Digitally signed by FARAZ AHMAD Date: 2022.12.06 17:09:30 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Satyam Kumar Gaud v. State of U.P. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyam Kumar Gaud 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Kamal Nayan Singh and 12 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dr. Devendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Shweta Singh and 2 Others Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Nikhil Porwal and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. and 7 Others

Smt. Reeta Verma Vs U.P. Secondary Edu. Service Sele. Board and Others