Petitioner challenged denial of Class-III compassionate appointment using Supreme Court precedent. Bench directed respondent authorities to reconsider claim within two months.
Petitioner's claim to be reconsidered for Class-III appointment within two months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:26887
Court No. - 20
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2641 of 2024
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
Hon'ble Shree Prakash Singh,J.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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,
submission is that the opposite party no. 2 may be directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner.
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.
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.
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.
With the aforesaid observations, the instant writ petition is disposed of.
Order Date :- 2.4.2024 AKS
Digitally signed by :- ANUJ KRISHNA SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment to a Class-III post must be reconsidered in light of the Supreme Court judgment in State of U.P. and Others Vs. Premlata.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
State of U.P. and Others Vs. PremlataRelied on¶8
State of U.P. and Others Vs. Premlata, (2022) 1 SCC-30 · Who else cites this
Prajawal Kumar Srivastava
State Of U.P.
Prakash Singh
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
