Rahul Kumar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Cooperative U.P. Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:16261-DB

Chief Justice's Court

Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 425 of 2023

Appellant :- Rahul Kumar Respondent :- State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Cooperative U.P. Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and others

¶5

Counsel for Appellant :- Daya Shankar Yadav Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Anand Kumar Singh (A.C.S.C.)

¶6

Hon'ble Arun Bhansali,Chief Justice Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.

¶7

This appeal is directed against order dated 01.08.2023, passed by learned Single Judge in Writ - A No. 5549 of 2023 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant has been dismissed.

¶8

The writ petition was filed by the appellant aggrieved of the order dated 25.04.2023, passed by Collector/District Magistrate, Sambhal rejecting the application of the appellant for regularization of services of his father and consideration of his case under the provisions of Uttar Pradesh Recruitment of Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (for short 'Rules of 1974').

¶9

It was, inter alia , claimed in the petition that the father of the appellant was appointed on the post of Kurk Amin in the department on 30.01.1995 and he worked on the said post till he died in harness on 02.01.2022. When repeated applications seeking compassionate appointment, made by the appellant, were not considered, he filed Writ - A No. 1439 of 2023, which was allowed on 28.02.2023 requiring the respondents to consider the case of father of the appellant for regularization and in case, services of his father were regularized, consider the

¶10

case of the appellant for compassionate appointment.

¶11

Pursuant to the directions of the learned Single Judge, the respondents considered the case of the appellant's father for regularization and rejected the same, inter alia , on the ground that against three sanctioned posts of Kurk Amin, three persons were already working and name of appellant's father was at serial No. 13 in the seniority list and therefore, he could not be regularized on account of availability of persons senior to him and there being no vacant substantive post.

¶12

Learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that once the services of the appellant's father were not regularized, the appellant cannot seek compassionate appointment under the Rules of 1974 and consequently, dismissed the writ petition.

¶13

Learned counsel for the appellant made submissions that the respondents were not justified in denying regularization to appellant's father and consequently, rejecting his prayer for grant of compassionate appointment. Submissions were made that appellant's father had worked on the post of Kurk Amin for a long period of 27 years when he died in harness on 02.01.2022 and there was no reason to deny regularization and therefore, the order impugned deserves to be quashed and set aside.

¶14

We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

¶15

After previous writ petition was decided by learned Single Judge directing consideration of appellant's father's case for regularization, a detailed order dated 25.04.2023 was passed, inter alia , indicating the availability of three substantive post of Kurk Amin, the same being already filled up and availability of

¶16

10 senior persons to appellant's father and as such, rejecting the case for regularization qua the said facts, the appellant has not been able to dispute the correctness of the facts indicated therein.

¶17

Regularization, if any, can only take place on availability of vacant substantive posts. Once no substantive post is vacant and persons senior to the incumbent seeking regularization are available, such claim could not be entertained and as such, the conclusion arrived at by the respondents in this regard, cannot be faulted. Mere fact that father of the appellant had worked for 27 years by itself does not entitle him to seek regularization and consequently, once the appellant's father was not on a regular post, the Rules of 1974 would have no applicability.

¶18

Consequently, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by learned Single Judge.

¶19

The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.

¶20

Order Date :- 20.3.2025 Mukesh Pal

¶21

(Jaspreet Singh, J) (Arun Bhansali, CJ)

¶22

Digitally signed by :- MUKESH PAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Rahul Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Cooperative U.P. Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rahul Kumar v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Cooperative U.P. Govt. Civil Secrt. Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Confidential and Vigilance Lko. and Another Vs Deepak Yadav

Dipendra Raj Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Panchayati Raj Deptt. and 6 Others

Chin Guddu Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others

Randheer Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Irrigation Deptt. Lko. and 5 Others

State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Deptt. Lko. and 3 Others Vs Deependra Prakash Tiwari

Pushpa Devi Annd 3 Others Vs General Manager, Aryavart Bank Head Office Lko. and 2 Others