Allowed

Abhay Malik v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy. Co-Operative Lko.and Ors.

Allahabad HC2 Feb 2024WRIA/14952/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought compassionate appointment after his father's death. The bank rejected the application citing a circular imposing a five-year limit. The court held the initial application was timely and ordered the authority to consider it.

What did the court decide?

Commanded opposite parties to consider petitioner's application for compassionate appointment within six weeks.

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

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:9869

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 14952 of 2021

¶4

Petitioner :- Abhay Malik Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy. Co-Operative Lko.And Ors.

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Piyush Asthana

¶6

Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Illegible,Vinod Kumar Singh

¶7

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶8

Heard learned counsel for petitioner, learned State Counsel for opposite party no.1, Mr. Vinod Kumar. Singh, learned counsel for opposite parties 2 to 4 and 6 and Mr. Prashast Puri, Advocate holding brief for Mr. Nadeem Murtaza, learned counsel for opposite party no.5.

¶9

Petition has been filed seeking a direction to competent authority to consider petitioner's application for compassionate appointment in place of his father late Devendra Singh who is said to have passed away on 13.05.2015.

¶10

It has been submitted that at the time of passing away of his father, petitioner was minor and his mother therefore submitted a letter dated 12.08.2015 informing the Bank about petitioner's minority and requesting that his case may be considered for compassionate appointment once he attains majority. Reminders were also thereafter sent on 25.08.2015 and 12.04.2021.

¶11

It has been submitted that provisions for compassionate appointment is clearly indicated in Regulation 104 of the U.P. Cooperative Societies Employees Service Regulations, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations of 1975) which are admittedly applicable upon petitioner but petitioner's application has not been considered or even forwarded to the U.P. Cooperative Institutional Service Board till date.

¶12

Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the U.P. Sahkari Gram Vikas Bank Ltd. admitting the fact that petitioner's father passed away on 13.05.2015 whereafter his mother submitted letters dated 12.08.2015, 25.08.2015 and 12.04.2021 indicating petitioner's minority at the time of death and requesting consideration for compassionate appointment when petitioner attains majority.

¶13

However, in paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit, it has been indicated that petitioner's candidature cannot be considered for compassionate appointment in view of Circular dated 25.09.1996 issued by U.P. Cooperative Institutional Service Board prohibiting any such consideration where applications are filed for compassionate appointment beyond a period of five years from the date of demise of an employee.

¶14

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Bank and perusal of material on record, it appears that it is the admitted situation that petitioner's father was an employee of the Bank and passed away on 13.05.015. Counter affidavit also admits that soon thereafter petitioner's mother submitted letter dated 12.08.2015 followed by letter dated 25.08.2015 in which she clearly stated that petitioner at that time was minor and requested consideration for compassionate appointment as and when petitioner would attain majority but petitioner's candidature has thereafter not been considered by competent authority only on ground that his application submitted on 12.04.2021 was beyond the stipulated period of five years from the date of death of employee. It is also admitted that provisions of compassionate appointment as per Regulation 104 of Regulations of 1975 is applicable upon petitioner.

¶15

In the considered opinion of this Court, once statutory

¶16

Regulation 104 did not prescribe any such time boundation, it was beyond the legislative competence of opposite party no.5 to have imposed such a condition over and above that of the statutory provision. However, since Circular dated 25.09.1996 has not been challenged by petitioner, no comment thereupon is being made.

¶17

Considering contents of paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit filed by the Bank, it is also evident that application for compassionate appointment was made by petitioner's mother on 12.08.2015, which even otherwise was very well within the time boundation set by opposite party no.5.

¶18

In the present facts and circumstances of the case, it is quite evident that petitioner at the time of death of his father was a minor and admittedly attained majority in the year 2017. Application for his consideration for compassionate appointment had already been made by his mother on 12.08.2015 and thereafter also on 25.08.2015 and on 12.04.2021. In such circumstances, it is quite evident that even taking the Circular dated 25.09.1996 into consideration, petitioner's application was very well within time and was thus required to be considered by the opposite parties.

¶19

In view of aforesaid, a Writ in nature of Mandamus is issued commanding opposite parties 4 and 5 collectively to consider petitioner's application for compassionate appointment taking into consideration other relevant factors as well. Such a decision shall be taken within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the concerned authority.

¶20

Consequently, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. Parties to bear their own cost.

¶21

Order Date :- 2.2.2024/kvg

¶22

Digitally signed by :- GIREESAN KV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Abhay Malik v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy. Co-Operative Lko.and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Abhay Malik v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl.Chief Secy. Co-Operative Lko.and Ors.

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

Chhaya Kumari Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Higher Education Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others

Ajay Public School Samiti, Sultanpur Thru. Manager Ms. Renu Jaiswal and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Institutional Finance, Lucknow and Others

Mohd. Haroon Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy., Deptt. of Minority Welfare, Lucknow and Others

Nand Kumar Shukla Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Basic Edu. Lko and 3 Others

Dev Kumar Verm and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Secondary Education Lko. and 3 Others

Ashok Prasad Singh and Another Vs U.P. Jal Nigam Thru. Its Managing Director Urban Lko. and 2 Others