Allowed

Raj Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. and 3 Others

Allahabad HC23 Jan 2024/5487/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court allowed the writ petition challenging the rejection of an application for compassionate appointment. The court held that the Sub-Divisional Officer lacked jurisdiction to condone delay and quashed the order, remanding the matter to the State Government for decision.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 15.05.2023 is quashed. A mandamus is issued to the State to decide the claim within a month. The petitioner is permitted to file a further application within ten days.

Raj Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:6454

¶2

Court No. - 25

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 5487 of 2023

¶4

Petitioner :- Raj Kumar

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rama Kant Dixit Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

¶7

Parties have exchanged affidavits.

¶8

Admit.

¶9

Heard forthwith.

¶10

Heard Mr. Rama Kant Dixit, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Jogendra Nath Verma, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

¶11

This writ petition is directed against the order dated 15.05.2023 passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ekauna, District-Shravasti rejecting the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment on the ground of delay.

¶12

The petitioner's father, Satgur Prasad, was a Peon in the office of the SubDivisional Officer, Ekauna, District-Shravasti. He died in harness on 04.11.2015. The petitioner's mother predeceased his father. At the time of his father's demise, the petitioner was a minor. The petitioner nevertheless moved an application on 10.12.2017 before the Sub-Divisional Officer seeking compassionate appointment. He said that his mother had died some 16 to 17 years ago and he is the only child of the deceased employee. The petitioner, being left without means of sustenance, plunged into an economic crises on account of the sudden loss of his father, the only breadwinning member of the family and made that application.

¶13

It is averred in paragraph no. 9 that upon attaining majority in the year 2019,

¶14

the petitioner made several applications regarding payment of his father's deathcum-retirement benefits but the respondents would require the petitioner to submit a succession certificate, besides a copy of the family register. These documents were not available with the petitioner, and he could not, therefore, file the same. Later on, the petitioner secured the succession certificate and moved it. These facts are not very relevant so far as the claim for compassionate appointment is concerned.

¶15

Faced with difficulty in securing compassionate appointment, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court being Writ A No. 2159 of 2023. The writ petition aforesaid was disposed of at the motion stage with a direction to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ekauna, District-Shravasti to consider and decide the petitioner's representation to be made afresh raising all his grievances within a period of two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this Court's order along with the representation.

¶16

The petitioner submitted his representation on 27.03.2023 along with a certified copy of the order dated 03.03.2023 passed by this Court. The SubDivisional Officer, by the order impugned, has rejected the petitioner's representation, holding that the claim is time barred and there is nothing said in the application regarding cause for the delay and no proof in support of the cause, if any shown, has been annexed.

¶17

Rule 5 of the Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (for short, 'the Rules') reads:

¶18

"5. Recruitment of a member of the family of the deceased-

¶19

(1) In case a Government servant dies in harness after the commencement of these rules and the spouse of the deceased Government servant is not already employed under the Central Government or a State Government or a Corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government or a State Government, one member of his family who is not already employed under the Central Government or a State Government or a Corporation owned or controlled by the Central Government or a State Government shall, on making an application for the purposes, be given a suitable employment in Government service on a post except the post which is within the purview of the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, in relaxation of the normal recruitment rules, if such person-

¶20

(i) fulfils the educational qualifications prescribed for the post,

¶21

(ii) is otherwise qualified for Government service, and

¶22

(iii) makes the application for employment within five years from the date of the death of the Government servant:

¶23

Provided that where the State Government is satisfied that the time limit fixed for making the application for employment causes undue hardship in any particular case, it may dispense with or relax the requirement as it may consider necessary for dealing with the case in a just and equitable manner.

¶24

(2) As far as possible, such an employment should be given in the same department in which the deceased Government servant was employed prior to his death."

¶25

The proviso to Rule 5 (1) (iii) invests the State Government with the power to condone the delay in making an application for compassionate appointment. Here, what this Court finds is that the Sub-Divisional Officer, after noticing that there was a delay beyond 5 years from the date of death of the employee, has proceeded to reject the application himself. It is apparent on the facts here that the petitioner was a minor at the time of his father's demise and he certainly has some explanation to offer for the delay in lodging his claim.

¶26

A Sub-Divisional Officer is not invested with the jurisdiction to consider the explanation for the delay or to condone it under the proviso to Rule 5 (1) (iii) of the Rules. The said power is vested exclusively in the State Government. In these circumstances, the Sub-Divisional Officer, finding the application to be apparently time barred, should have referred it to the State Government for their decision in the matter of condonation of delay. The Sub-Divisional Officer could certainly not determine the matter on the question of delay.

¶27

In the circumstances, this petition succeeds and is allowed . The impugned order dated 15.05.2023, passed by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ekauna, DistrictShravasti, is hereby quashed and a mandamus is issued to the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government of U.P., Lucknow and the SubDivisional Magistrate, Ekauna, District-Shravasti to ensure between themselves that the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment is decided within a month of receipt of a copy of this order in accordance with law.

¶28

The petitioner shall be permitted to file a further application within ten days hence, or an affidavit in support of his claim together with documents, if any, seeking condonation of delay. The papers shall be submitted to the SubDivisional Officer, Ekauna, District-Shravasti who will forward the same to the Principal Secretary aforesaid.

¶29

Let this order be communicated to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ekauna, District-Shravati through the District Magistrate, Shravasti and the Principal Secretary, Department of Revenue, Government of U.P., Lucknow by the Senior Registrar within 48 hours next.

¶30

Order Date :- 23.1.2024 Prashant D.

¶31

Digitally signed by :- PRASHANT DWIVEDI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Raj Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rais Ahmad and 2 Others vs Prescribed Authority/City Magistrate and 3 Others

Km Mobina Masood Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Smt. Rajkumari Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Ajay Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home Dept. Lko. and 2 Others

Om Prakash Dwivedi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Addl. Chief Secy. Home Dept. Lko. and Another

Brijesh Kumar Srivastava Vs Provident Fund Commissioner Employees Provident Fund Organisation Allahabad U.P. and 3 Others