Dismissed

Komal v. State of U.P. through Secretary Home and 2 Others

Allahabad HC11 Jul 2022WRIC/15854/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition seeking compassionate appointment as a fair price shop agent. The petitioner, a grand-daughter of the deceased agent, claimed entitlement against the State. The Court held that since her father was alive, she could not claim dependency on the deceased grand-father, distinguishing prior decisions where petitioners' fathers had pre-deceased.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition lacking merit is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Komal Vs State of U.P. through Secretary… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2022)

¶1

A.F.R.

¶2

Court No. - 38

¶3

Case :- WRIT - C No. - 15854 of 2022

¶4

Petitioner :- Komal

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Through Secretary Home And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kr. Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.

¶7

Heard Shri Sanjay Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Rajesh Khanna, learned Standing Counsel.

¶8

Present writ petition has been filed to quash the order dated 8.4.2022 passed by respondent no.3/ District Supply Officer, Prayagraj, rejecting the petitioner's application to grant her compassionate appointment, as fair price shop agent at Prakhand-1, Nayapura, Stanley Road, Prayagraj.

¶9

Undisputedly, the petitioner's grand father namely Ram Naresh was the fair price shop agent at the above described location. It is the petitioner's case that the said Ram Naresh ran the fair price shop without any complaint till his death on 23.3.2019. He was survived by his three sons - Uma Shanker (petitioner's father), Shiv Shanker and Roop Chand and, two married daughters - Smt. Abhilasha and Smt. Kamlesh. According to the petitioner, she has two brothers namely - Vishal and Avinash and, one sister namely Smt. Ruchi.

¶10

In these circumstances, the petitioner claims dependency on her grand father, during his lifetime. Accordingly, she claims entitlement to compassionate appointment re the fair price shop agency held by the deceased Ram Naresh, in his place. Reliance has been placed on three decisions of this Court in Ashok Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., Misc. Single No. 2899 of 2015 , decided on 20.7.2016; Sunil Kumar Yadav Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., Misc. Single No. 13015 of 2020 , decided on 3.9.2020 and; Akansha Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., Writ -

¶11

C No. 32296 of 2021 , decided on 4.12.2021.

¶12

On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel has vehemently opposed the writ petition. He would submit, family of a fair price dealer has been described in Clause IV(10) of the Government Order dated 5.8.2019. It reads:

¶13

" यददि दकिससी नगरसीय कቌኔ्ቔ किका उदचित दिर दविकቌኔतका अथविका उसकिቌኔ पररविकार किቌኔ सदिस्य , सभकासदि यका अध्यक किका चिचुनकावि जसीत जकातका हहै ततो उसकिቌኔ अथविका उसकिቌኔ पररविकार किቌኔ सदिस्य किቌኔ नकाम चिल रहसी उदचित दिर दिचुकिकान किका अनचुबन्ध उसቌኔ तत्किकाल समदपरत किरनका हतोगका अन्यथका ्ቚश्नगत अनचुबन्ध दनरस्त घतोदषित किर ददियका जकायቌኔगका। पररविकार किकी पररभकाषिका विहसी हतोगसी , जतो उ 0 ्ቚ 0 आविश्यकिविस्तचु ( दवितरण किቌኔ दविदनयमन किका दनययं्ቔण ) आदिቌኔश 2016 मम दिसी गयसी हहै -

¶14

पररविकार किका मचुखखियका।

¶15

पदत / पत्नसी दविखधकि रूप सቌኔ अपनकायቌኔ गयቌኔ दि्ቈकि सन्तकान सदहत।

¶16

सन्तकान जतो पररविकार किቌኔ मचुखखियका पर पपूणर रूप सቌኔ आखቦኌत हतो।

¶17

अदविविकादहत , दविखधकि रूप सቌኔ पपृथकि और दविधविका बቌኔटसी , और

¶18

पररविकार किቌኔ मचुखखियका पर पपूणर रूप सቌኔ आखቦኌत मकातका / दपतका। "

¶19

Relying on that definition, it has been submitted, petitioner is a grand-daughter of the deceased fair price shop agent Ram Naresh. She is neither included under any of the specific relationships included (as noted above), nor she has shown herself to be wholly dependent on the deceased Ram Naresh as would entitle her to claim grant of compassionate appointment.

¶20

With respect to the decisions relied by learned counsel for the petitioner, it has been submitted, those are decisions on facts. They do not lay down the law. Therefore, they have no binding efficacy.

¶21

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the record, the facts are undisputed. The petitioner is the grand-daughter of the deceased fair price shop agent Ram Naresh. The petitioner's father Uma Shankar is alive. Therefore, considering societal practice and behaviour, that fortunate circumstance itself strongly suggests existence of dependency of the petitioner on her father, if at all. It is especially so - in

¶22

view of inclusion of unmarried or legally separated or widowed daughter as a dependent of her father (not grandfather) under Clause IV(10) of the Government Order dated 5.8.2019. Also, the definition of the family given in Clause IV(10) of the Government Order dated 5.8.2019 has not been challenged. Beyond that relations - at one level up and below are included in the definition of family along with spouse of the fair price shop agent. No special fact was pleaded either before the authority or before this Court, by the petitioner, to claim her dependency on her grand-father Ram Naresh, during the lifetime of her father.

¶23

What survives for consideration is whether the petitioner is entitled to grant of fair price shop agency on the strength of three decisions of this Court, referred to above. Here, it may be noted, in Ashok Kumar (supra) , fair price shop agent died on 12.3.2014. Petitioner Ashok Kumar was his grandson. However, it was his specific case noted in paragraph 3 (of the order dated 20.7.2016 passed in that case), that the father of Ashok Kumar had pre-deceased his father. Similarly, in Sunil Kumar Yadav (supra ), in paragraph 3 of the order dated 3.9.2020, it was specifically recorded, Hausila Prasad (father of that petitioner) had pre-deceased his father Sitaram Yadav, the duly appointed fair price shop agent in that case. In Akansha Singh (supra) , again, father of that petitioner had pre-deceased his father. In paragraph 3 of that report, it has been noted, the grand father of the petitioner Dharam Pal Singh died on 31.12.2020. He was survived by that petitioner's grand mother, mother and sister (but not father).

¶24

Thus, in all cases, relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, father of all those petitioners had pre-deceased their father, who happened to be the deceased fair price shop agent. Thus, the question whether those petitioners were dependent on

¶25

their respective father, on the date of their claim being made, did not arise. In fact, each of those petitioners claimed to be wholly dependent on their grand father, for the reason of prior death of their own father.

¶26

Even otherwise, it is not for the Court to legislate or frame policy decisions. Once, the policy is not shown to include a grandchild in the definition of family of a fair price shop agent, that rule (in law) may never arise on the strength of indulgence granted by the Court in individual facts of a case.

¶27

On account of the above, the decisions relied are found to be wholly distinguishable.There is no substance in the claim of the petitioner. The same has been rightly rejected.

¶28

Writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed . No order as to costs.

¶29

Order Date :- 11.7.2022 Prakhar

¶30

Digitally signed by PRAKHAR SRIVASTAVA Date: 2022.07.13 10:26:33 IST Reason: Location: High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Komal v. State of U.P. through Secretary Home and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Komal v. State of U.P. through Secretary Home and 2 Others

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

S/S Vijay Dry Fruit Company Gola Deena Nath Varanasi Vs the Commissioner Commercial Tax U.P.Lucknow

Akhilesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Krishna Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Narendra Singh Vs State of U P and 3 Others

Sudama Prasad Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Raj Kumar Dubey Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others