Allowed

Vishwaroop v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Agriculture Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC15 Oct 2024/2058/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Court held that the State could not terminate a compassionate appointment after a 12-year delay where the petitioner had disclosed material facts. The impugned order cancelling services was quashed, and the petitioner was reinstated.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 23.02.2024 quashed; petitioner reinstated with consequential benefits from termination to reinstatement date.

Vishwaroop Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:69436

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2058 of 2024 Petitioner :- Vishwaroop Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Agriculture Deptt. Lko. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Tripathi,Anand Mani Tripathi,Vimal Kumar Awasthi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶4

Heard Sri A.M. Tripathi, learned counsel for petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel for respondents.

¶5

It has been submitted by learned counsel for petitioner that father of the petitioner, namely, Sri Ramjanam Singh was working in Agriculture Department on the post of Senior Assistant and died in service on 31.10.2009 leaving behind the petitioner and other members of the family. The petitioner being the son of the deceased government servant had applied for appointment on compassionate ground under the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (Hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules of 1974'). It is on due consideration on the application submitted by the petitioner who having attained the age of majority in the year 2011 had filed the said application and he was given appointment on compassionate grounds on the post of Junior Assistant in the Agriculture Department. The said appointment was given to him on 20.04.2012. Subsequent to his appointment, the services of the petitioner has been confirmed on 31.03.2016 and also that he has been given a promotion to the post of Senior Assistant on 03.10.2019.

¶6

The controversy in the present case has arisen on account of the fact that a complaint was received with the respondents with regard to appointment of the petitioner. In the complaint, it was stated that the mother of the petitioner was also a government servant and consequently as per the Rules of 1974, the petitioner could not have been given an appointment on compassionate grounds considering the fact that one of the parents was a government servant.

¶7

A show cause notice was given to the petitioner on 03.06.2022 seeking his explanation as to why his appointment be not cancelled which has been obtained by him de hors the Rules of 1974. The petitioner duly responded to the show cause notice and denied the allegations levelled therein and submitted that in the form submitted by him at the time of his appointment he had duly disclosed that his mother was government servant

¶8

and working in the Agriculture Department and despite the respondents having the knowledge of the aforesaid facts had granted him appointment and consequently it was stated that there was no concealment on behalf of the petitioner and had not played any fraud with the respondents at the time of seeking appointment on compassionate ground.

¶9

The reply of the petitioner was not found to be satisfactory and accordingly by means of impugned order dated 23.02.2024 his services was terminated on the ground that the appointment was void ab initio and accordingly such an appointment could be terminated at any time and it is only when a complaint was received by the respondents, they took cognizance of the aforesaid facts and found that the petitioner had obtained appointment contrary to the Rules of 1974 inasmuch as the spouse of the deceased was a government servant and the same is clearly barred by the Rules of 1974 and hence his appointment was cancelled.

¶10

Learned counsel for petitioner while assailing the said order has submitted that though there is no dispute with regard to the fact that his appointment was contrary to the Rules of 1974 but he has been in continuous services since last 12 years and in the meanwhile his services has been confirmed and he has also been granted promotion and accordingly the appointment cannot be cancelled after such an unreasonable delay. He further led emphasis on the fact that there was no concealment on behalf of the petitioner with regard to any of the material facts and that he has disclosed in th form that his mother was employed in the Agricultural Directorate, on the basis of which his appointment has been cancelled.

¶11

Learned Standing Counsel on the other hand has opposed the writ petition. He has submitted that once it is not disputed that the appointment of the petitioner was de hors the Rules of 1974, then no further inquiry was required to be conducted and any appointment de hors the Rules has to be set aside and accordingly the impugned order has been passed in accordance with law and hence has prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

¶12

This Court has heard rival contention as well as perused the record.

¶13

The facts of the present case are not disputed inasmuch as father of the petitioner Late Ramjanam Yadav was working on the post of Senior Assistant in the Agriculture Department and died on 31.10.2009. The petitioner on attaining the age of 18 years in 2011 had moved an appropriate application for being granted compassionate appointment which on due consideration

¶14

was allowed and he was granted appointed on compassionate ground on 20.04.2012 and since then the petitioner is continuously working with the respondents till 23.04.2024 when his appointment letter has been set aside on the ground that his appointment was de hors of Rules of 1974 in light of the fact that his mother was also a government servant who was working in the Agriculture Department and as such the petitioner was not entitled to be granted compassionate appointment.

¶15

Considering the aforesaid facts the first issue which requires consideration is as to whether the respondents were competent to pass the impugned order for cancellation of the appointment after a lapse of nearly 12 years. Though there may be certain errors in passing the orders which deserves to be rectified by the concerned authority and such rectification had be made within a reasonable period of time. There is no doubt that the petitioner had truly disclosed the details with regard to the service of his mother which is evident from the proforma submitted by him to the concerned authority at the time of seeking appointment on compassionate ground.

¶16

A perusal of the aforesaid application form clearly demonstrates that his mother namely, Sarita, has been shown to be the wife of the deceased government servant and it has further been indicated that she was working in the Agriculture Department. Specific averments has also been made in paragraph No. 10 of the writ petition which has not been denied by the respondents in their counter affidavit. Accordingly, once it is clear that there is no concealment on behalf of the petitioner then the onus lay upon the authority concerned to have duly considered all the aspects with regard to eligibility of the petitioner prior to granting him compassionate appointment. Even if there was some infirmity at the stage of considering the candidature of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment the same could have been rectified within a reasonable period of time. At any stretch of imagination, 12 years cannot be said to be a reasonable period of time and accordingly once his services has been confirmed and subsequently he has been granted promotion, the respondents could not have been revisited the aspect of the appointment and set aside the same.

¶17

Hon'ble the Supreme Court in similar circumstances where the individual had obtained compassionate appointment de hors the rules and his appointment was set aside after a period of 15 years, it was held that the same was not justified in terminating such an appointment. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Md. Zamil Ahmed Vs.

¶18

The State of Bihar & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 4815 of 2016) is quoted herein below:-

¶19

"14) Keeping in view the peculiar undisputed facts of the case and having regard to the totality of the circumstances, we are of the considered view that the State was not justified in terminating the appellant's services. In other words, the ground on which the appellant's services were terminated by the State after a period of 15 years of appellant's appointment does not appear to be well founded. This we say for the following reasons:

¶20

15) Firstly, the appellant and wife of the deceased at the time of seeking compassionate appointment did not conceal any fact and nor filed any false or incorrect document/declaration. On the other hand, both of them disclosed their true family relations and conditions prevailing in the deceased family on affidavit.

¶21

16) Secondly, the appellant, who is the brother of the deceased, undertook to maintain the family of the deceased in the event of his securing the compassionate appointment and he accordingly also gave such undertaking to the State."

¶22

It is in the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is also of the considered view that there was no justification on the part of the State to have woken up after a lapse of 12 years and found infirmity in the appointment of the petitioner and quashed the same. Further there is no allegations that the petitioner had concealed any material fact or some fact was found out by the State after a substantial length of time necessitating termination of his services. Once a finding has been recorded that the petitioner was not responsible for suppression of any material fact in securing his appointment then the onus lay upon the State to have examined the entire facts prior to giving him appointment on compassionate grounds. For the lapse if any of the State the services of the petitioner cannot be terminated after a lapse of 12 years.

¶23

In light of the above, the writ petitioner is allowed . The impugned order dated 23.02.2024 is quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner in service with all consequential benefits from the date of his termination till the date of his reinstatement.

¶24

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶25

Order Date :- 15.10.2024/Ravi/

¶26

Digitally signed by :- RAVI SHANKAR SRIVASTAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Vishwaroop v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Agriculture Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Vishwaroop v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Agriculture Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Abdul Sameer Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 4 Others

Raees Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others

Ram Suresh Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and 5 Others

Rajesh Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Food and Civil Supplies, Lko. and 2 Others

Abhishek Shastri vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Women and Child Develop. Secrt. Lko. and 3 Others

Vishwaroop vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Agriculture Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others