Dismissed

Devendra Kumar Gautam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Appointment Deptt. U.P. Govt. Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC24 May 2024SPLAD/287/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A special appeal was filed by an employee appointed on a Class-IV post under Dying-in-Harness Rules, seeking appointment to a Class-III post. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that acceptance of the initial appointment exhausted the right to seek a higher post, relying on Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed, and the order dated 21.12.2022 dismissing the writ petition was affirmed.

Devendra Kumar Gautam vs State of U.P… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:39435-DB

¶2

Chief Justice's Court

¶3

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 287 of 2024 Appellant :- Devendra Kumar Gautam Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Appointment Deptt. U.P. Govt. Lko. And Others Counsel for Appellant :- Jitendra Singh,Abhinav Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C. Anand Kumar Singh, A.C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶5

This appeal is directed against the order dated 21.12.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ A No. 8705 of 2022 whereby the petition filed by the petitioner/appellant seeking a direction to the respondents to accord him appointment on Class-III post under the Dying-in-Harness Rules, 1974 (the Rules, 1974) has been dismissed.

¶6

The appellant's father, who was working on the post of Consolidator (Kanoongo), died on 25.10.2016. The appellant applied under the Rules, 1974 and was issued appointment letter dated 25.8.2017 offering him appointment on Class-IV post. The appellant joined on 30.8.2017 and continued to work on the said post. Whereafter, he made representation to the respondents seeking appointment on Class-III post based on his qualifications and also with the submissions that at the time, when he was appointed on Class-IV post, the appointment at the relevant time was incorrect. The respondents rejected the plea raised by the appellant. Feeling aggrieved, writ petition was filed.

¶7

Learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties interalia referring to the judgements in State of U.P. and others vs. Premlata : Civil Appeal No. 6003 of 2021 decided on 05.10.2021 and Sunil Kumar vs. State of U.P. and others : Civil Appeal No. 5038 of 2022

¶8

¶9

decided on 02.08.2022 , came to the conclusion that no interference was required in the orders passed by the respondents.

¶10

The appeal is barred by 487 days. No plausible explanation has been given seeking condonation of delay, except for indicating financial crisis, family dispute as well as the fact that memo of writ petition could not be arranged. As no particulars in this regard have been indicated, no case for condonation of delay in filing the appeal is made out.

¶11

However, on the insistence of the counsel for the appellant, the matter was examined.

¶12

It is not in dispute that the appellant has accepted the appointment on Class-IV post on 30.8.2017 and is working on the said post under the Rules, 1974. Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Umrao Singh : 1994(6) SCC 560 has interalia laid down that on accepting the appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Rules, the right to get appointment stood exhausted and thereafter under the said Rules, the incumbent cannot seek appointment on higher post. Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under :

¶13

"9. Since both the sides relied on Naresh Kumar Bali's case (supra), we will now refer to the same.

¶14

We had indicated our mind in that very ruling in paragraph 15 of the said judgment. It reads as under:

¶15

“Though the respondent claimed that he had applied for the post of a teacher the Subordinate Service Selection Board had not chosen him for the post of a Teacher because he did not have the requisite qualification. In fact, the respondent did not object to his appointment as a Clerk and his claim for consideration for the post of Teacher was one year after his appointment. Thus, the appointment on compassionate ground as per the scheme had been completed.”

¶16

Therefore, once the right has consummated as we indicated earlier, any further or second consideration for a higher post on the ground of compassion would not arise."

¶17

¶18

In view of the above fact situation, no case for interference in the order impugned is made out. The appeal has no substance and the same is, therefore, dismissed.

¶19

Order Date :- 24.5.2024 SK

¶20

(Jaspreet Singh, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)

¶21

¶22

Digitally signed by :- SANDEEP KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Devendra Kumar Gautam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Appointment Deptt. U.P. Govt. Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devendra Kumar Gautam v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Appointment Deptt. U.P. Govt. Lko. and 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

Jaykar Pandey Vs Mustaqeem Ahmad and Another

Jagannath vs State of U.P. Thru. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue Lko. and 3 Others

Kanpur Mahanagar Dal Millers Association Regd. Thru. Auth. Representative Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Gupta Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Agricultural Marketing and Foreign Trade U.P. Lko. and Others

U.P. Public Service Commission Prayagraj Thru. Secy. and Another Vs Siddharth and Another

Kanauji Lal Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Revenue , Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Devendra Kumar Gautam Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Appointment Deptt. U.P. Govt. Lko. and Others