Disposed

Vivek Kumar Singh v. the State of U.P. Thr. Its Prin Secy. and 6 Others

Allahabad HC12 Jul 2023WRIA/10151/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought directions for consideration of his claim for compassionate appointment under U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921. Court disposed of the writ petition, granting liberty to the petitioner to file representation for the competent authority to consider the claim within three months.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioner to file representation for competent authority to consider claim within three months.

Vivek Kumar Singh Vs the State of U.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:137270

¶2

Court No. - 35

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 10151 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Vivek Kumar Singh Respondent :- The State Of U.P. Thr. Its Prin Secy. And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Shitlesh Pandey,Girish Chandra Maurya Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Shitlesh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shailendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel who appears for Respondents 1 to 3.

¶7

In view of the order, which is proposed to be passed today, notices are not being issued to Respondents 4 to 7.

¶8

The case of the writ petitioner as worded in the writ petition is that there is an institution by the name and style of Sukhnandanpur Inter College, Mathmuhammadpur, Mau, which is recognized under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the Rules framed therein.

¶9

It is the further case of the petitioner that father of the petitioner, namely, Subhash Singh (since deceased) was working as a Clerk died on 03.09.2021. In paragraph-7 of the writ petition, it has been averred that from the first wife of the deceased, namely, Bindu Singh, the writ petitioner was born and from the second wife, namely, Mrs. Poonam Singh, sixth respondent, the seventh respondent was born.

¶10

It is further the case of the writ petitioner that he had applied for compassionate appointment on 20.09.2021 and armed with necessary qualification, he is entitled to be granted preference and be considered for compassionate appointment.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that the fourth and fifth respondent being the Committee of Management and Principal of the Institution in question are in hands and gloves with respondents 6 and 7 and they want to confer the benefit of compassionate appointment upon 7th respondent.

¶12

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in view of the provisions contained under Chapter III Regulation 103 of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921, the claim of the petitioner is to

¶13

be accorded consideration in that regard.

¶14

Prayer in the present petition is for a direction to the third and fourth respondents, District Inspector of Schools, Mau and Committee of Management to accord consideration to the claim of compassionate appointment of the petitioner.

¶15

Sri Shailendra Singh, learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submits that though in the writ petition, averments have been made that the claim of the writ petitioner is to be considered under U.P. Recruitment of Dependent of Government Servants (Dying-inHarness) Rules 1974, but the position being that the institution is governed under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 and the Rules framed therein and thus, Chapter III Regulation 103 of the U.P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 would apply and the case of the writ petitioner and the other competent claimants to be considered under the said provisions by the competent authority. According to the learned Standing Counsel, no fruitful purpose would be served in detaining the writ petition on Board, however, according to him, they do not propose to file any response to the writ petition. However, liberty be accorded to the third respondent, District Inspector of Schools, Mau for consideration of the claim of the writ petitioner and other claimants, if any.

¶16

Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the rival parties as well as the stand taken by them, the writ petition is being disposed of without seeking any response from the respondents, granting liberty to the writ petitioner to file a comprehensive representation along with the self-attested copy of the writ petition before the third respondent, who on the receipt of the same, shall put to notice the fourth respondent, Committee of Management, fifth respondent, Principal of the Institution in question and the sixth and seventh respondents Mrs. Poonam Singh and Rajesh Kumar and thereafter consider the claim of the writ petitioner and the others, strictly in accordance with law in pursuance of the acts and rules framed therein, within a period of three months from the date of production of the certified copy of the order.

¶17

Needless to point out that the private respondents are not before his Court and the writ petitioner has been decided on exparte version.

¶18

Since the writ petitioner is being disposed off without seeking any response and in absence of them, thus the order passed hereinabove may not be construed to an expression that this Court

¶19

has adjudicated the matter on merits and the third respondent shall accord consideration with the application of mind without being obsessed or influenced by any of the observations made hereinabove.

¶20

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed off .

¶21

Order Date :- 12.7.2023 N.S.Rathour

¶22

Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Vivek Kumar Singh v. the State of U.P. Thr. Its Prin Secy. and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vivek Kumar Singh v. the State of U.P. Thr. Its Prin Secy. and 6 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

Arun Kumar and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Sheelwati Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Akhilesh Kumar Singh Vs Directorate of School Education, Aligarh Muslim University and 3 Others

Sanjay Kumar Sengar Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Poonam Kumari Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Nirmala Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. and 8 Others