Dismissed

Kavish Saxena v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Allahabad HC26 Sept 2023WRIA/13114/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenging rejection of compassionate appointment dismissed. Court held eligibility under UP Rules judged on date of death of bread earner, where father was in service then.

What the court decided

AI extract

Kavish Saxena Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others — Service and Employment | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:186394

¶2

Court No. - 34

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 13114 of 2020

¶4

Petitioner :- Kavish Saxena Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rampyare Lal Srivastava,Jagdish Singh Bundela Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.

¶6

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

¶7

By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has challenged the order dated 13.03.2020, whereby, his claim for compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that at the time of death of his mother, his father was already employed as Government servant and therefore, in view of Rule 5(1) of The U.P. Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, the petitioner could not have been offered appointment.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the mother of the petitioner had died in the year 2015 while his father was in Government employment but his father also retired in the year 2019 and therefore, his second application after the retirement of his father was liable to be considered.

¶9

Learned Standing Counsel on the contrary submits that cause for compassionate appointment after petitioner accrued on the date of death of bread earner of the family and therefore, the eligibility is to be seen on that date. The Rules that are applicable on that date shall be applicable. Since the petitioner's mother died in the year 2015 and father of the petitioner was in service, the petitioner could not have been offered appointment in view of Rule 5(1) of the Rules, 1974. He submits that the subsequent retirement of the petitioner's father will not give any accrual of right to the petitioner.

¶10

Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and their arguments raised across the bar, it is an admitted position that in the year 2015 when the mother of the petitioner died, father of the petitioner was still alive and was in government employment. Rule 5(1) of the Rules, 1974 do provide that the compassionate appointment shall be offered only in cases where the spouse of the

¶11

deceased government servant is already not employed either under the Central Government or the State Government.

¶12

Since it is a factual position not disputed by the petitioner that his father was in government service, therefore, as per Rule 5(1) of Rules, 1974 the petitioner could not have been offered appointment and under the circumstances, the order impugned cannot be faulted with.

¶13

In so far as the petitioner's claim of consideration of his application after the petitioner's father retired in the year 2019 and claims that he moved an application within five years, it is to be borne in mind that relevant the rule under the Rules, 1974 gives right on the date of death of employee concerned whose dependent is to be offered appointment, therefore, the eligibility is to be judged on that date or on the date the dependent becomes major.

¶14

In view of the above legal position, I do not find any merit in the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment.

¶15

Writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed .

¶16

Order Date :- 26.9.2023 IrfanUddin

¶17

Digitally signed by :- IRFAN UDDIN SIDDIKI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kavish Saxena v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Kavish Saxena v. State of U.P. and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Babu Saxena Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Shailendra Kumar Saxena Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Mukesh Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Another

Ved Prakash Pandey Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Mahaveer Singh Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt. Savita Devi Vs State of U.P. and 5 Others