Disposed

Prajawal Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC2 Apr 2024/2641/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought writ of Mandamus to reconsider his compassionate appointment claim. Court directed respondents to reassess petitioner's eligibility for Class III post citing Supreme Court precedent within two months before disposing of the petition.

What did the court decide?

Directing respondents to reconsider petitioner's claim for Class III post appointment within two months.

Prajawal Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:26887

¶2

Court No. - 20

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2641 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Prajawal Kumar Srivastava Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development Deptt. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mahendra Nath Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Namit Sharma

¶5

Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.

¶6

Sri Fareed Ahmad, Advocate, has put in appearance by way of filing Vakalatnama on behalf of opposite parties no. 2 & 3 and the same is taken on record.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ran Vijay Singh, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Fareed Ahmad, learned counsel for the opposite parties no. 2 & 3.

¶8

The instant writ petition has been filed seeking a writ of Mandamus commanding and directing the opposite parties no. 2 & 3 to reconsider the claim of the petitioner on compassionate ground in the light of law settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. and Others Vs. Premlata , reported in (2022) 1 SCC-30.

¶9

Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the father of the petitioner late, Basant Kumar Srivastava; was working on the post of Pump Operator on regular basis and he died on 26-092022 and the petitioner is having the requisite qualification for appointment on compassionate ground on Class III post, as he is having Intermediate Certificate.

¶10

Adding his arguments, he submits that on place of appointing the petitioner on compassionate ground on Class-III Post, he was appointed on Class-IVth post, which is against the ratio of Judgment in the case of State of U.P. and Others Vs. Premlata (Supra). He further submits that identically situated person, namely Deepak Gupta S/O late Rajendra Gupta, was appointed on Class-III post and the case of the petitioner is identical to the case of Deepak Gupta. Thus,

¶11

submission is that the opposite party no. 2 may be directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner.

¶12

On the other hand, Sri Fareed Ahmad, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties no. 2 & 3 has rebutted aforesaid facts and submitted that the petitioner is not having the requisite qualification of the I.T.I., which is required for appointment on the post of Pump Operator.

¶13

Considering the submissions of learned counsels parties and after perusal of material placed on record, it transpires that the dispute is with respect to the appointment on Class-III Post while claiming that similarly situated person namely, Sri Deepak Gupta, has been given appointment on Class-III Post, and further the petitioner is also having the requisite qualification so as to be appointed on Class-III Post.

¶14

In view of the above submissions and discussions, the opposite parties no. 2 & 3 are directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner particularly his claim regarding appointment on Class III post in the light of the case of State of U.P. and Others Vs. Premlata (Supra), within a period of two months, from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before them.

¶15

With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition is disposed of.

¶16

Order Date :- 2.4.2024 AKS

¶17

Digitally signed by :- ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Prajawal Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development Deptt. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prajawal Kumar Srivastava v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Urban Development Deptt. Lko. 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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Noorul Haq Khan Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Institutional Finance Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Neelam Kumari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Basic Education Lko. and 5 Others

Dr. Umesh Dutt Awasthi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Agriculture Edu. Research Lko and 3 Others

Aayushi Jain Vs Union of India Thru. Secy., Deptt. of Higher Education, Ministry of Edu., New Delhi and Others

Satish Chandra Maurya Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. City Development Deptt. Lko. and 7 Others

Sushil Kumar Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Education Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others