Allowed

Sameer Pandey v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC7 Apr 2022WRIA/2296/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged rejection of compassionate appointment on Class IV post. Court held earlier direction for Class III post or supernumerary appointment was violated. Writ petition was allowed and impugned order quashed.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; respondent directed to grant appointment on Class III post or create supernumerary post within six weeks.

Sameer Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

Court No. - 32

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2296 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Sameer Pandey Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rashmi Tripathi,Anuradha Sundaram Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the State respondents.

¶6

Petitioner had earlier approached this Court by way of Writ-A No.10149 of 2021 against denial of his claim for compassionate appointment. Then ground taken was that on account of lack of vacant post petitioner could not be appointed in view of Government Order dated 18.05.2017. This Court while deciding the Writ-A No.10149 of 2021 by the order dated 18.08.2021 directed that the case of the petitioner shall be considered for appointment on suitable post without considering ban imposed by the State Government and if no post is vacant then by creating a supernumerary post.

¶7

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned order dated 01.12.2021 passed by respondent no.2 / Director Ayurvedic, Unani Sevayen, Directorate, Lucknow is based again on the ground that there is no vacant post for appointment of the petitioner available. The appointment of the petitioner on Class IV post is not acceptable to the petitioner. Therefore, in absence of Class III post the representation of the petitioner has been rejected.

¶8

Keeping in view the earlier judgement passed by this Court in Writ-A No.10149 of 2021, the order impugned dated 01.1202021 is contemptuous too, besides being illegal. It is hereby quashed.

¶9

Respondent no.2 is directed to grant appointment to the petitioner on any Class III post. If no such post is vacant on supernumerary post as directed earlier in judgement passed by this Court in Writ A-10149 of 2021 within a period of six weeks from today.

¶10

With aforesaid directions, writ petition stands allowed.

¶11

Order Date :- 7.4.2022 SS

¶12

Digitally signed by SURENDAR SINGH NARANG Date: 2022.04.08 17:33:42 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Sameer Pandey v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sameer Pandey 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gadan Lal Kesharwani Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Dr. Anoop Kumar Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Dheeraj Kumar Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ved Prakash Vs State of U P and 4 Others

Hubraji Devi Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Pankaj Chauhan Vs the State of U.P. and 2 Others