Dismissed

Nitin Kumar S/O Late Rakesh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P.through Prn.Secy.Irrigation and Others

Allahabad HC23 Oct 2024WRIA/4155/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought direction for compassionate appointment under Dying in Harness Rules for his late father. Court directed respondent to consider the representation expeditiously considering relevant precedents.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted liberty to move a fresh representation for appointment under Dying in Harness Rules within two weeks; respondent ordered to consider it within two months.

Nitin Kumar S/O Late Rakesh Kumar Singh Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:71538

¶2

Court No. - 6

¶3

Case :- WRIT - A No. - 4155 of 2009

¶4

Petitioner :- Nitin Kumar S/O Late Rakesh Kumar Singh Respondent :- State Of U.P.Through Prn.Secy.Irrigation And Others

¶5

Counsel for Petitioner :- Rakesh Chandra Tewari Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.

¶6

Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

¶7

Heard Sri R. C. Tewari, learned counsel for the petitioner and the Standing counsel for the respondents.

¶8

By means of the present writ petition the petitioner has sought a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment under Dying in Harness Rules.

¶9

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that father of the petitioner late Rakesh Kumar Singh, who was working on the post of Part Time Tube-well Operator, died on 22.12.2004 after serving the department for more than 19 years leaving behind him his wife Smt. Subhawati, three sons (including the petitioner) and two daughters. On the death of his father the petitioner moved an application on 15.06.2009 seeking appointment under Dying in Harness Rules before Executive Engineer, Tube-well Division, Hardoi. Despite the fact that the petitioner is fully eligible and entitled for being appointed under Dying in Harness Rules, the respondents have neither considered his case nor passed any orders on the application of the petitioner.

¶10

It is further submitted that at the time when father died the matter pertaining to his regularization was under consideration and after his death necessary orders were passed where the services of junior persons to the father of the petitioner were regularized but as the father of the petitioner died prior to the said consideration no order was passed. He submits that the respondents should consider the case of the petitioner treating his father to have been duly regularized. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner has not been considered merely on account of the fact that the services of the father of the petitioner were never regularized prior to his death.

¶11

The respondents have opposed the claim of the petitioner stating that his father was neither a government servant nor was he substantially appointed on the post after following the

¶12

procedure prescribed under the Rules. It has been submitted that merely because father of the petitioner was working on the post of Part Time Tubewell Operator and also the fact that he was covered under U.P. Regularization of Part-time Tube-well Operators Rules, 199, as such, he was not given regular appointment till his death and worked in the capacity of parttime tube well operator.

¶13

In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this aspect of the matter has been considered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Uttam Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others decided on 10.9.2018 in Special Appeal Defective No.264 of 2018 where in similar circumstances part-time tubewell operators were declared to be government servants as per Rule 2A of the Rules of 1974 and also the fact that Dying in Harness Rules are applicable on such persons.

¶14

After arguing the matter at some length learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the grievances of the petitioner shall be substantially redressed in case opposite party No.2 is directed to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner under the Rules of 1974 for compassionate appointment expeditiously.

¶15

Learned Standing counsel does not object to the aforesaid prayer made by the petitioner.

¶16

Accordingly, the petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to move a fresh representation seeking appointment under Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 expeditiously say within a period of two weeks from today before respondent No.2.

¶17

In case, such a representation is moved, respondent No.2 i.e. Engineer-in-Chief, Irrigation Department, Govt. of U.P., Lucknow shall proceed to consider and decide the same expeditiously say within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order in accordance with law and shall also consider the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Uttam Singh V.s. State of U.P. and others (supra).

¶18

O rder Date :- 23.10.2024

¶19

A. Verma

¶20

(Alok Mathur, J.)

¶21

Digitally signed by :- ANURAG VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Nitin Kumar S/O Late Rakesh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P.through Prn.Secy.Irrigation and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nitin Kumar S/O Late Rakesh Kumar Singh v. State of U.P.through Prn.Secy.Irrigation 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahendra Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy./ Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko and 2 Others

Manisha Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Jai Ram Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. U.P. Govt. Lko. and 2 Others

Shubham Kumar Vs Union of India Thru. Secy., Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi and Others

Raghu Raj and 10 Ors. Vs State of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy. P.W.D. Lucknow and Ors.

Surendra Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Cooperative Deptt. Lko and 3 Others