Allowed

Premlata v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Nagar Vikas U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Allahabad HC19 Jan 2024WRIA/348/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Held that a compassionate appointee is deemed a regular employee from the first day of appointment, regardless of uncompleted probation. Consequently, the rejection of the petitioner's compassionate appointment application was quashed, and appointment was commanded within six weeks.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 18 November 2023 quashed; respondents commanded to appoint petitioner on compassionate basis within six weeks.

Premlata vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:5515

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 348 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Premlata

¶5

Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Nagar Vikas U.P. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Mahendra Nath Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Namit Sharma

¶6

Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

¶7

Heard Mr. Mahendra Nath Yadav learned counsel for petitioner and State Counsel for opposite party No.1. Power on behalf of opposite parties 2 and 3 have been accepted by Mr. Virendra Singh Advocate which is taken on record.

¶8

Petition has been filed challenging order dated 18th November, 2023 whereby petitioner's application for appointment on compassionate basis under The U.P. Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 has been rejected.

¶9

Since reasons for rejection of petitioner's candidature has already been indicated specifically in the impugned order itself, there is no occasion for this Court to call for counter affidavit particularly in matters such as compassionate appointment and therefore this petition is being adjudicated upon at the admission stage itself in terms of Judgment rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill versus Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others reported in A.I.R. 1978 SC 851.

¶10

It has been submitted that from a perusal of impugned order itself it will be indicated that petitioner's husband late Bal Govind was appointed on compassionate basis himself on 30th October, 2021 wherefter he was kept on probation for one year but during that period he passed away in a road accident on 24th November, 2021. It is submitted that since petitioner's late husband was appointed on compassionate basis, as per settled law, his appointment would be deemed to be substantive in nature and not irregular as has been held in the impugned order. Learned counsel for petitioner has relied upon judgment rendered by Full bench of this Court in the case of Senior General Manager Ordnance Factory versus Central Administrative Tribunal and another passed in writ A No.43622 of 2015 as well as in the case of Ravi Karan Singh versus State of U.P. and others (1999) (2) ESC 972.

¶11

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite parties 2 and 3 has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner on the premise that since petitioner's late husband had not completed period of one year probation, it can not be said that he was regular employee of the department due to which petitioner would not be covered in terms of Rule 2 of the Rules of 1974. It is also submitted that as has been indicated in the impugned order, since petitioner's late husband did not fulfil the conditions of Rule 2 of the Rules 1974, no benefit can accrue to petitioner who is the wife of deceased.

¶12

Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record particularly the impugned order, it is quite evident that petitioner's application for appointment on compassionate basis has been rejected only on the ground that since petitioner's late husband did not complete period of probation, he can not be deemed to be a regular employee of the department and therefore neither he nor the petitioner would come within definition of Rule 2 of Rules of 1974.

¶13

The aforesaid proposition of law is no longer res integra and it has already been held that nature of compassionate appointment is substantive from the very first day of appointment as has been held in Full Bench decision in the case of Senior General Manager Ordnance Factory(supra) wherein question No.2 has specifically been answered that appointment of a person on compassionate ground can be made on probation but is deemed to be a regular appointment and not temporary. The same analogy has also been taken in the case of Ravi Karan Singh (supra).

¶14

In view of settled law that appointment made on compassionate basis under Rules of 1974 is regular in nature, the very basis of impugned order is therefore in violation of such settled law. It is therefore held that petitioner' late husband who admittedly was appointed on compassionate basis in terms of Rules of 1974 was a regular employee of the department due to which he as well as the petitioner would come within definition of Rule 2 of Rules of 1974.

¶15

In view of aforesaid, the impugned order dated 18th November, 2023 is hereby quashed by issuance a writ in the nature of Certiorari since no other ground for rejection of petitioner's application has been taken, a further writ in the nature of Mandamus is issued commanding the opposite parties 2 and 3 to offer appointment to petitioner on compassionate basis within a peirod of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the said authority.

¶16

Resultantly the petition succeeds and is allowed at the admission stage itself. Parties to bear their own cost.

¶17

Order Date :- 19.1.2024 prabhat

¶18

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

Premlata v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Nagar Vikas U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Premlata v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Nagar Vikas U.P. Lko. and 2 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

Raj Kumar Mathur Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Higher Education Deptt. Lko. and 4 Others

Arun Memorial Higher Secondary School, Bahraich Thru. Manager, Laxmi Devi Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Madhyamik Shiksha, Lucknow and Others

Natthu Singh and 4 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Chief Secy. (Ex- Officio ) Chairperson (U.P.S.a.S) Lko. and 4 Others

Km. Jaya Srivastava Vs State of U.P. Thru. Secretary Basic Education and 2 Others

Premlata Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Nagar Vikas U.P. Lko. and 2 Others

Arya Samaj, Lucknow Thru. Secy. Abhishek Tiwari and Another Vs Commissioner, Lucknow Division, Lucknow and Others