Dismissed¶¶22

Anurag Arya v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC22 Sept 2023WRIA/15966/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Allahabad High Court (Abdul Moin, J.), WRIT - A No. - 15966 of 2023, decided 22.9.2023 (Neutral Citation 2023:AHC:184860). Compassionate appointment under the U.P. Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules, 1974; meaning of 'suitable post' — to be read qua the post held by the deceased employee, per the Supreme Court in State of U.P. and others v. Premlata, Civil Appeal No.6003 of 2021 (05.10.2021), relied on; graduate dependent of a deceased Class IV employee not entitled to a Class III post; writ petition challenging orders dated 29.08.2023 and 16.03.2023 dismissed, with liberty to join the Class IV post within ten days subject to formalities.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to submit his joining on the offered Class IV post within ten days, provided he fulfills all the formalities specified in that regard.

Anurag Arya Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others — Allahabad HC (2023) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the petitioner to submit his joining on the offered Class IV post within ten days, provided he fulfills all the formalities specified in that regard.

¶¶22

Issue for consideration

Whether, under the U.P. Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules, 1974, the petitioner — a graduate son of a deceased Class IV employee — was entitled to be offered a Class III post as a 'suitable post' according to his qualification, rather than the Class IV post offered by the respondents. +1 more

¶¶9

Court's answer

Following State of U.P. v. Premlata, the suitability of a post under the 1974 Rules is to be considered vis-à-vis the status/post held by the deceased employee; since the petitioner's father admittedly held a Class IV post, there was no occasion for the respondents to offer the petitioner a Class III post.

¶¶18

Ratio / Principle

Notwithstanding the lapse of the earlier one-week joining period, the petitioner was permitted to join the offered Class IV post within ten days, provided he fulfills all the formalities specified in that regard.

¶¶21

Key takeaways

In view of the discussion, no case for interference was made out and the writ petition was dismissed, with the aforesaid observations.ratio¶¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Compassionate appointment — U.P. Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 — 'suitable post'. The petitioner, a graduate son of a Class IV employee who died in harness on 10.12.2022, claimed that he ought to have been offered a Class III post according to his qualification; the respondents had offered him a Class IV post by orders dated 16.03.2023 and 29.08.2023. Relying on State of U.P. and others v. Premlata, Civil Appeal No.6003 of 2021 (decided 05.10.2021), the Court held that the object of compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis, and that the suitability of the post is to be considered vis-à-vis the post held by the deceased employee; where the deceased admittedly held a Class IV post, there was no occasion to offer a Class III post. Writ petition dismissed; however, since the one-week joining period stipulated in the order dated 29.08.2023 had lapsed because of the filing of the petition, the petitioner was permitted to join within ten days subject to fulfilling all prescribed formalities.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:184860

¶2

Court No. - 37

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 15966 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Anurag Arya Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Raj Kumar Dhama,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶5

Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

¶6

Heard Sri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Raj Kumar Dhama, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vijay Lal, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

¶7

Instant writ petition has been filed praying for quashing of the orders dated 29.08.2023 and 16.03.2023 passed by the respondents no.2 and 3 to the extent that the petitioner has been appointed on a Class IV post. Copies of the said orders have been filed as Annexures 6 and 4 respectively to the writ petition.

¶8

The contention of learned Senior Advocate is that the father of the petitioner was working on a Class IV post under the respondents and he died in harness on 10.12.2022. The petitioner staked his claim seeking compassionate appointment under the provisions of the U.P. Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the '1974 Rules'). The respondents by means of orders impugned have offered appointment to the petitioner on a Class IV post.

¶9

The contention is that as the petitioner is a graduate as such considering the provisions of 1974 Rules, which provide for offering of a 'suitable post', the petitioner should have been offered appointment on a Class III post and not on a Class IV post.

¶10

On the other hand, Sri Vijay Lal, learned Standing Counsel, has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. and others vs. Premlata passed in Civil Appeal No.6003 of 2021 decided on 05.10.2021 to contend that the provisions of 1974 Rules including the words 'suitable post' have been considered by the Apex Court and it has been held that the words 'suitable post' have to be read qua the post held by the deceased employee in the department. It is thus contended that once the father of the petitioner was holding a Class IV post

¶11

consequently there cannot be any occasion for offering of a Class III post to the petitioner and thus the petitioner has correctly been offered a Class IV post as per the orders impugned.

¶12

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records what emerges is that admittedly the father of the petitioner was a Class IV employee under the respondents who died in harness on 10.12.2022. The petitioner staked his claim for compassionate appointment under the provisions of 1974 Rules. By means of orders impugned the petitioner has been offered appointment on a Class IV post. The petitioner is contending that as he is a graduate consequently the post that should be offered to him should be a post as per his qualification i.e. suitable post as per 1974 Rules and thus prays that there cannot be any occasion for the respondents to offer a Class IV post.

¶13

The aforesaid controversy pertaining to suitable post has been considered threadbare by the Apex Court in the case of Prem Lata (supra) wherein the Apex Court after considering the provisions of 1974 Rules has held as under:-

¶14

"10. Thus as per the law laid down by this court in the aforesaid decisions, compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of appointment in the public services and is in favour of the dependents of a deceased dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood, and in such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give such family a post much less a post held by the deceased...

¶15

10.2 The Division Bench of the High Court in the present case has interpreted Rule 5 of Rules 1974 and has held that ‘suitable post’ under Rule 5 of the Rules 1974 would mean any post suitable to the qualification of the candidate irrespective of the post held by the deceased employee. The aforesaid interpretation by the Division Bench of the High Court is just opposite to the object and purpose of granting the appointment on compassionate ground. ‘Suitable post’ has to be considered, considering status/post held by the deceased employee and the educational qualification/eligibility criteria is required to be considered,

¶16

considering the post held by the deceased employee and the suitability of the post is required to be considered vis a vis the post held by the deceased employee, otherwise there shall be no difference/distinction between the appointment on compassionate ground and the regular appointment. In a given case it may happen that the dependent of the deceased employee who has applied for appointment on compassionate ground is having the educational qualification of Class II or Class I post and the deceased employee was working on the post of Class/Grade IV and/or lower than the post applied, in that case the dependent/applicant cannot seek the appointment on compassionate ground on the higher post than what was held by the deceased employee as a matter of right, on the ground that he/she is eligible fulfilling the eligibility criteria of such higher post. The aforesaid shall be contrary to the object and purpose of grant of appointment on compassionate ground which as observed hereinabove is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis on the death of the bread earner. As observed above, appointment on compassionate ground is provided out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that some source of livelihood is provided and family would be able to make both ends meet."

¶17

When the facts of the instant case are seen in the context of law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Premlata (supra) , it clearly emerges that the Apex Court after considering the provisions of 1974 Rules has held that the whole object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis and the object is not to give such family a post much less the post held by the deceased and that 'suitable post' is to be considered considering the status/post held by the deceased employee and the educational qualification/eligibility criteria is required to be considered considering the post held by the deceased employee i.e. suitability of the post is required to be considered vis-a-vis the post held by the deceased employee.

¶18

Consequently, keeping in view the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Premlata (supra) there cannot be any occasion for the respondents to have offered a Class III post to the petitioner more particularly when the father of the petitioner was admittedly holding a Class IV post.

¶19

At this stage, learned Senior Advocate states that in terms of the order impugned dated 29.08.2023 the petitioner had been required to submit his joining on a Class IV post within a week and the said period has lapsed on account of the petitioner having

¶20

approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition.

¶21

Considering that the respondents have already offered a Class IV post to the petitioner but he was unable to join within the time specified in the order impugned and is now willing to join, as such, it is provided that in case the petitioner submits his joining within ten days' from today the petitioner would be permitted to join provided he fulfills all the formalities as specified in this regard.

¶22

In view of the aforesaid discussion, no case for interference is made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed but with the aforesaid observations.

¶23

Order Date :- 22.9.2023 A. Katiyar

¶24

Digitally signed by :- AMIT KATIYAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anurag Arya v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anurag Arya v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Km. Raktima Sharma Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Anita Kumari Vs Union of India and 5 Others

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

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

Vijay Bahadur Singh Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Hargovind Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others