Dismissed

Anju Singh v. State of Up and 4 Others

Allahabad HC26 Jul 2024SPLAD/551/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed an intra-court special appeal by the appellant, who sought compassionate employment for her deceased father while also claiming terminal benefits. Addressing the Court regarding the 18-year delay, held that compassionate appointments are meant for immediate relief and cannot be claimed as a right after such a lapse of time.

What did the court decide?

Special Appeal dismissed. Direction for release of terminal dues stands; claim for compassionate employment rejected due to delay.

Anju Singh vs State of Up and 4 Others — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:120007-DB

¶2

Court No. - 29

¶3

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL DEFECTIVE No. - 551 of 2024 Appellant :- Anju Singh Respondent :- State Of Up And 4 Others Counsel for Appellant :- Ajeet Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶4

Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J. Hon'ble Prashant Kumar,J.

¶5

1. Heard Sri Ajeet Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant-petitioner and Sri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

¶6

2. The instant intra-court Special under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 is being preferred by the appellant-petitioner challenging the legality and validity of the judgment and order dated 31.05.2024 passed in WRIT - A No. - 7813 of 2024 ( Anju Singh Vs. State of U.P. and 4 Others ), wherein the learned Single has dismissed the writ petition.

¶7

3. It appears from the record that the father of the appellantpetitioner was working as Sugar Cane Supervisor in Baghpat Cane Office, Baghpat and his services were terminated by the District Cane Officer, Ghaziabad (respondent no.5) vide order dated 04.02.1999. The said order was challenged before this Court in Writ A No.53161 of 2000 (Chandrabhan Singh vs. Cane Commissioner and others). During the pendency of the said writ petition, the father of the appellant died on 17.07.2006. Finally, the writ petition was allowed by this Court on 03.08.2018 and the deceased employee was made entitled for all consequential benefits. The petitioner had filed Writ A No.7813 of 2024 with prayer to issue direction to the respondent no.2 to consider his application for compassionate employment and for payment of retiral dues of his father. Finally, learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition 31.5.2024 with direction to the respondent no.3 to release the retiral dues of the deceased within one month. So far as the claim of the appellant-petitioner for compassionate employment is concerned, learned Single Judge has rejected the same with an observation that the writ petition was filed with an inordinate delay of about 18 years and no convincing and cogent reason has been given for the same.

¶8

Sri Ambrish Shukla, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has vehemently opposed the appeal and submits that so far as the

¶9

grievance of the petitioner-appellant qua the terminal benefits is concerned, the same has already been provided to her by the Department concerned. He submits that the purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to provide immediate succor to a bereaved family and such appointments should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress, whereas in the instant case, the petitioner-appellant has claimed her right after a period of 18 years and, therefore, learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the claim of the appellant for compassionate employment.

¶10

5. After hearing the rival submissions of the parties, this Court finds that so far as the compassionate employment is concerned, the same is given to mitigate immediate financial hardship to the family of the deceased employee. The law in this regard is well settled.

¶11

6. In State of Haryana and Ors. Vs. Rani Devi and Anr (1996) 5 SCC 308 : AIR 1996 SC 2445) , it was held that the claim of applicant for appointment on compassionate ground is based on the premise that he was dependant on the deceased employee. Strictly this claim cannot be upheld on the touchstone of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. However, such claim is considered reasonable as also allowable on the basis of sudden crisis occurring in the family of the employee who had served the State and died while in service. That is why it is necessary for the authorities to frame Rules, Regulations or to issue such administrative instructions which can stand the test of Articles 14 and16 . Appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter or right.

¶12

7. In Smt. Sushma Gosain & Ors. V. Union of India & Ors. (1989) 4 SCC 468 , it was observed that in claims of appointment on compassionate grounds, there should be no delay in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread earner in the family. Such appointments should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress.

¶13

8. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of J. & K. vs. Sajad Ahmed Mir, 2006 AIR SCW 3708, has taken the view that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as matter of right, at the cost of others. Normally, an employment in Government or other public sectors should be open to all eligible candidates who can come forward to apply and compete with each other. It is in

¶14

consonance with Article 14 of the Constitution. On the basis of competitive merits, an appointment should be made to public office. This general rule should not be departed except where compelling circumstances demand, such as, death of sole bread earner and likelihood of the family suffering because of the setback. Once it is proved that in spite of death of bread earner, the family survived and substantial period is over, there is no necessity to say 'goodbye' to normal rule of appointment and to show favour to one at the cost of interests of several others ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution.

¶15

9. Admittedly, the sole bread earner died in the year 2012 and the compassionate claim under the compassionate employment was also non-suited by the respondent-Bank way back in the year 2013 itself. At this belated stage, the delayed claim cannot be revived and in this regard the law is settled by the Hon'ble Apex in C. Jacob V. Director of Geology and Mining and another (2008) 10 SCC 115 wherein the Supreme Court has held that for the purposes of limitation the Court has to see as to when the original cause arose and in any case no fresh cause of action arise on the decision of the representation. Relevant paragraphs 9, 10, 11 and 14 read as under:

¶16

"9. The courts/tribunals proceed on the assumption, that every citizen deserves a reply to his representation. Secondly they assume that a mere direction to consider and dispose of the representation does not involve any decision' on rights and obligations of parties. Little do they realize the consequences of such a direction to consider'. If the representation is considered and accepted, the ex-employee gets a relief, which he would not have got on account of the long delay, all by reason of the direction to `consider'. If the representation is considered and rejected, the ex-employee files an application/writ petition, not with reference to the original cause of action of 1982, but by treating the rejection of the representation given in 2000, as the cause of action. A prayer is made for quashing the rejection of representation and for grant of the relief claimed in the representation. The Tribunals/High Courts routinely entertain such applications/petitions ignoring the huge delay preceding the representation, and proceed to examine the claim on merits and grant relief. In this manner, the bar of limitation or the laches gets obliterated or ignored.

¶17

10. Every representation to the government for relief, may not be replied on merits. Representations relating to matters which have become stale or barred by limitation, can be rejected on that ground alone, without examining the merits of the claim. In regard to representations unrelated to the department, the reply may be only to inform that the matter did not concern the department or to inform the appropriate department. Representations with incomplete particulars may be replied by seeking relevant particulars. The replies to such representations, cannot furnish a fresh cause of action or revive a stale or dead claim.

¶18

11. When a direction is issued by a court/tribunal to consider or deal with the

¶19

representation, usually the directee (person directed) examines the matter on merits, being under the impression that failure to do may amount to disobedience. When an order is passed considering and rejecting the claim or representation, in compliance with direction of the court or tribunal, such an order does not revive the stale claim, nor amount to some kind of acknowledgment of a jural relationship' to give rise to a fresh cause of action.

¶20

12........

¶21

13........

¶22

14. We are constrained to refer to the several facets of the issue only to emphasise the need for circumspection and care in issuing directions for "consideration". If the representation on the face of it is stale, or does not contain particulars to show that it is regarding a live claim, courts should desist from directing "consideration" of such claims."

¶23

10. Further on the question of laches, the Supreme Court in AIR 1972 SC 2060, Kamini Kumar Das Chaudhary vs. State of West Bengal and others in Para 11 of the said judgment has held as under:-

¶24

"11. We may mention that the Division Bench of Calcutta High Court had, treating the case as one for a mandamus to reinstate the appellant, relied upon the statements in Halsbury's Laws of England, Third Edition, Vol. 11, page 73 article 133 that "except in a case where the delay is accounted for Mandamus will not be granted unless applied for within a reasonable time after the demand and refusal". The Division Bench had also referred to Farris on "Extraordinary Legal Remedies" (page 228), to hold that not only, on an analogy from the Statute of limitation in civil cases, a reasonable period may be indicated for applications for Writs of Mandamus, but relief may be refused on the ground of acquiescence and presumed abandonment of the right to complain inferred from inordinate delay. It rightly observed that laches is a well established ground for refusal to exercise the discretion to issue a Writ."

¶25

11. It is well established that the purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to provide immediate succor to a bereaved family and such appointments should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. The services of the appellant's father were dispensed with vide an order dated 04.02.1999, which was subject matter of challenge in Writ A No.53161 of 2000 and during the pendency of the same, the father of the appellant died on 17.07.2006. Finally, the writ petition was allowed by this Court vide an order dated 03.08.2018 with direction to accord all consequential benefits. Later on, as an afterthought the writ petition was preferred in the year 2024 for mandamus commanding the respondents to accord compassionate employment and while disposing of the said writ petition learned Single Judge vide order dated 31.05.2024 had directed the

¶26

respondents for ensuring the terminal/retiral benefits within one month's time and the compassionate employment was denied as the same has been pressed after 18 years of death of the bread earner.

¶27

12. In view of above, the special appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed.

¶28

Order Date :- 26.7.2024 Sachin

¶29

Digitally signed by :- SACHIN TIWARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Anju Singh v. State of Up and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anju Singh v. State of Up and 4 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

Similar cases

Gyanmati vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Alok Kumar Mishra vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Smt Priyanka Dubey vs State of Up and 2 Others

Laxman Singh and 6 Others vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Amana Khatoon vs State of Up and 2 Others

M/S Ridhi Sidhi Enterprises vs State of Up and 3 Others