Dismissed

Rajesh v. Uco. Bank Thru. Chairman Cum Managing Director , Sarani and Another

Allahabad HC21 Jul 2023/25/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court dismissed a review application against an order that rejected a writ petition on compassionate grounds as infructuous due to non-appearance and a decade-long lapse. The court held the applicant lacked diligence in locating counsel and could not rely on the long delay to defeat the claim.

What did the court decide?

Review application dismissed. No order as to costs.

Rajesh Vs Uco. Bank Thru. Chairman Cum… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:48085-DB

¶2

Court No. - 1

¶3

Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 25 of 2023

¶4

Applicant :- Rajesh Opposite Party :- Uco. Bank Thru. Chairman Cum Managing Director , Sarani And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Navita Sharma,Dadu Ram Shukla (D.R. Shukla )

¶5

Hon’ble Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya J. Hon’ble Subhash Vidyarthi J.

¶6

Heard Ms. Navita Sharma, the learned counsel for the review applicant and the learned Standing Counsel.

¶7

Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the review-applicant had filed Writ Petition No. 7598 (S/S) of 2004 pleading that his father had died in harness on 12.11.1985 while the review-applicant was minor. Upon attaining the age of majority, the review-applicant applied for being appointed on compassionate grounds on 15.01.1992. Thereafter, he submitted some representations. In reply to his letter dated 26.03.2004, the employer UCO Bank sent a letter dated 01.04.1994 stating that as per the record of the Bank, he had not made any claim for being appointed on compassionate basis and he was directed to contact the Department of Personnel of the Bank. On 15/16.12.2004, the review-applicant filed the Writ Petition No.7598 (S/S) of 2004 claiming compassionate appointment. At the time of filing of the writ petition, the review-applicant was 29 years of age.

¶8

After expiry of almost a decade, the writ petition was listed on 04.04.2014 under the category ‘Cases likely to be infructuous’. Neither the learned counsel for petitioner appeared before the Court when the case was called out, nor was any request made on his behalf

¶9

Page 1 of 4

¶10

for adjournment of the case and, therefore, the Court passed an order dismissing the petition, as having become infructuous.

¶11

Almost 6 years after dismissal of the Writ Petition, on 06.03.2020 the review-applicant filed an application for restoration of the case on the ground that he was unable to locate the chamber of his counsel and he came to know about the order dated 04.04.2014, only in the year 2020. The Hon’ble Single Judge rejected the application for restoration holding that the reason indicated in the affidavit filed with the application for condonation of delay in filing restoration application that a person filing a writ petition in the year 2004, was unable to locate the chamber of his counsel and he came to know about the order dated 04.04.2014, only in the year 2020, is unbelievable and the Hon’ble Single Judge did not find the reason to be satisfactory.

¶12

The aforesaid order was challenged by filing a belated Special Appeal. On 26.03.2021 an order was passed for issuance of notice of the application for condonation of delay in filing the Special Appeal and steps for service of notice on the respondent were directed to be taken within ten days. The steps were not taken for about one year and four months and ultimately an application seeking condonation of delay in taking steps was filed on 20.07.2022.

¶13

While deciding the Special Appeal, the Court took the view that the aforesaid conduct of the review-applicant indicates absolute lack of diligence in pursuing his remedies.

¶14

This Court further held that the review-applicant’s father had died way back in the year 1985. The object and purpose of providing compassionate appointment is to enable the dependent members of the family of the deceased employee to tide over the immediate financial crisis caused by the death of the bread-earner. Where a long lapse of time has occurred since the death of the deceased employee, the sense of immediacy for seeking compassionate appointment would cease to exist and this would be a relevant circumstance which must weigh with the authorities in determining as to whether the case for the grant

¶15

Page 2 of 4

¶16

of compassionate appointment has been made out. The burden lies on the applicant, where there is a delay in making an application to establish a case on the basis of reasons. Provisions for grant of compassionate appointment do not constitute a reservation of a post in favor of the member of the family of the deceased employee. There is no general right which can be asserted that a member of the family who was minor at the time of death of the employee, would be entitled to claim compassionate appointment upon attaining the age of majority.

¶17

The instant application has been filed seeking review of the judgment and order dated 19.01.2023 on the ground that the writ petition was listed on 04.04.2014 wrongly, in the category of case likely to be infructuous, whereas the lis was subsisting and, therefore, the Hon’ble Single Judge had erred in dismissing the Writ Petition even if the learned counsel for the petitioner failed to appear before the Court and point out this fact. The learned counsel for the review-applicant has submitted that the review petitioner should not be made to suffer for the fault of the officials of the registry of this Court in listing the case under the heading of "cases likely to be infructuous" and for the fault of the counsel to appear before the Court and point out the fact that the matter had not become infructuous.

¶18

We are of the considered view that the submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be penalized for the fault of the registry or for the fault of his previous counsel, is not acceptable as the facts noted above clearly indicate a lack of due diligence on the part of the review-petitioner and he cannot escape his responsibility of acting diligently by shifting the burden on a learned counsel, even more particularly, when the Counsel is no more.

¶19

The second ground pressed by the learned counsel for the review applicant is that the object of Dying in Harness Rules is to provide help in the event of sudden death of a bread earner, as early as possible, but the claim can neither be frustrated nor defeated because of passage of time.

¶20

Page 3 of 4

¶21

This submission is also not acceptable for the reasons already mentioned in the order dated 19.01.2023. The learned Counsel for the review-applicant could not point out any provision of law to support this submission either at the time of hearing of the Special Appeal or at the time of hearing of the review Application, which might indicate an error in the judgment dated 19.01.2023.

¶22

In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered view that the order dated 19.01.2023 sought to be reviewed does not suffer for any error, much less error apparent on the face of record.

¶23

The review application lacks merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶24

However, there will be no order as to costs.

¶25

(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.) (Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, J.) Order Date - 21.7.2023 Pradeep/-

¶26

Page 4 of 4

¶27

Digitally signed by :- PRADEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rajesh v. Uco. Bank Thru. Chairman Cum Managing Director , Sarani and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajesh v. Uco. Bank Thru. Chairman Cum Managing Director , Sarani and Another

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

Mata Prasad Tiwari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Civil Sectt. Lko. and Others

Urmila Chaudhary Vs Savita Devi and Others

State of U.P. Thru. Prin./Addl.Chief Secy. Revenue Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others Vs Ram Kesh Sharma

State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Secondary Education U.P. Lko. and Others Vs Mohd. Sharif Khan and Another