Allowed

Aman Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC20 Feb 2023WRIA/21914/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged the rejection of a compassionate appointment claim solely due to delay, despite a prior order directing authorities to consider the claim sympathetically. The court set aside the impugned order for not considering the case on merits and directed reconsideration within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 04.11.2022 was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the respondent authorities to reconsider the claim on merits within four weeks.

Aman Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Court No. - 33

¶2

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 21914 of 2022

¶3

Petitioner :- Aman Kumar Srivastava Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Satyendra Narayan Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶5

Heard Shri Satyendra Narayan Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Neetu Singh, learned counsel for the Staterespondents.

¶6

In pursuance of the order dated 08.02.2023, the counsel for the petitioner has filed supplimentary affidavit, which is taken on record.

¶7

The learned standing counsel has also provided written instructions dated 10.01.2023 under the signatures of the respondent no.2, which is also taken on record.

¶8

By means of the instant petition, the petitioner assails the order dated 04.11.2022 passed by the respondent no.1 whereas the claim of the petitioner for granting compassionate appointment has been rejected.

¶9

The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the sole ground upon which the representation of the petitioner has been rejected is account of delay. It is alleged that even earlier the case of the petitioner was rejected only on the ground of delay, which had prompted the petitioner to seek indulgence of this Court by means of Writ-A No.10169 of 2022 (Aman Kumar Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. And 2 others), wherein this Court by means of an order dated 18.07.2022 had required the respondent authorities to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment sympathetically and taking into account the law settled by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Shiv Kumar Dubey Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2014 (2) ADJ 312 (FB). It is urged that in furtherance of the order passed by this Court dated 18.07.2022, respondent no.1 once again has rejected the representation of the petitioner and that too on the ground of delay. It is thus urged that the respondent authorities have not considered the intent of the order passed by the Court and has merely reiterated its earlier stand without due application of judicial mind. It is also urged that

¶10

it was open for the respondents to have considered the case of the petitioner in order to make a decision but not confined to the question of delay and it was already noticed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court that the case of the petitioner be considered sympathetically.

¶11

Refuting the aforesaid contention, Ms. Neetu Singh, learned counsel for the State-respondents has pointed out from the written instructions that the case of the petitioner is hugely delayed. It is also urged that the compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and thereafter the factors, which need to be taken while arriving at the decision whether there is ground of compassionate appointment, or not. In the instant case, there is no financial hardship caused to the petitioner and as it is the petitioner approached with delayed in as much as the father of the petitioner had died on 11.06.2019 and the application was moved by the petitioner much later after about four years and odd. In the aforesaid circumstances, it cannot be said that the authority has taken an incorrect view, which may persuade this Court to intervene and in furtherance of her submission, she placed reliance upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Fertilizers and Chemical Travancore Ltd. & Ors. Versus Anusree K.B. in Civil Appeal No.6958 of 2022, which was decided on 30.09.2022.

¶12

Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State-respondents and considering the material available on record, this Court finds that in so far as the dictum of the Apex Court in the case of Anusree K.B. (supra) is concerned, the proposition cannot be disputed, however, the applicability of the same in the instant case is doubtful for the reason that the authorities have not entertained the request/the application of the petitioner on merits. It was open for the authorities to have taken a view in the light of the factual matrix as well as the facts and circumstances, which are required to be considered for adjudging an application for suitability for grant of compassionate appointment. Further, what this Court finds is that once by means of an order dated 18.07.2022 passed in Writ-A No.10169 of 2022 (Aman Kumar Srivastava Vs. State of U.P. And 2 others), the Court had clearly directed the respondent no.1 to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment sympathetically. The reason why the petitioner had approached the Court in the first place was on account of the fact that the claim was rejected only on the ground of delay.

¶13

The relevant portion of the order dated 18.07.2022 is being reproduced hereinafter for ready reference:-

¶14

"5. This Court is of the prima facie opinion that in the order impugned dated 28.09.2018, the State Government has ignored that the mother of the petitioner had applied initially on 06.06.2014 praying for compassionate appointment for her son.

¶15

6. The order impugned dated 28.09.2018 is set aside with a direction to the respondent no.1 to consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment sympathetically and taking into account the law settled by Full Bench of this Court in Shiv Kumar Dubey Vs. State of U.P. and others, 2014 (2) ADJ 312 (FB), and pass appropriate speaking and reasoned order thereon within a period of eight weeks from the date a copy of this order is produced. "

¶16

From the perusal of the material available on record, it is clear that the the intent of the Court was to direct the respondent no.1 to consider the claim of the petitioner on merits. Whereas, from the perusal of the impugned order, it would indicate that the respondent authorities fell in error in entering into the same controversy of delay. It has not considered the case of the petitioner on merits, rather delay is the sole cause for rejecting the claim and passing the impugned order, whereas, the issue of delay placed into insignificance in light of order dated 18.07.2022 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

¶17

In view of the aforesaid, this Court is satisfied that the the impugned order cannot sustain judicial scrutiny and it is accordingly set aside.

¶18

The matter shall be reconsidered by the respondent no.1 in the light of earlier order passed by this Court dated 18.07.2022 and the observations made in this order. The respondent no.1 shall reconsider and take a conscious decision in the case of the petitioner on merits by a speaking and reasoned order preferably within a period of four weeks from the date, a certified copy of this order is placed before the authority concerned.

¶19

In view of the facts and circumstances, the writ petition is allowed .

¶20

There shall however be no order as to costs.

¶21

Order Date :- 20.2.2023 Zafar

¶22

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ZAFAR ANSARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Aman Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aman Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chote Lal Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Vineeta Pandey Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Naveen Rajhans Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Saroj Devi Vs Union of India and 3 Others

Rinku Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Girija Shankar Prasad Vs State of U P and 3 Others